Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Archive 2

Wikibooks hosts instructional resources
Since this clause of this policy statement is increasingly being used as a rationale for deleting content from this project, I think a major discussion needs to take place (again) on this topic. Perhaps with some time passing from the original arguments and changes that were made earlier, perhaps we can hold a rational discussion on this topic.

Keep in mind that before the changes by Jimbo and Kernigh, the text of this read:


 * As a general rule, any book you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop is acceptable.

As has been pointed out, this rule even as stated had exceptions because there was content specifically excluded, including NPOV issues, content that belonged on other Wikimedia projects, and original research issues.

As of now (March 18th, 2006), the wording reads:


 * Wikibooks hosts instructional resources. As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not acceptable because of the list of exclusions in this policy. This is for textbooks. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class.

My #1 objection to this change is that it was done completely by fiat without any sort of community discussion. Certainly no "community concensus" that the policy should have been changed in this degree. I want to note here I'm not suggesting that the content be reverted to the version prior to Jimbo's edit, but that a full discussion can and should take place about these changes.

BTW, I removed the comment about Lollerpedia mainly because I felt that POV opinions about the status of the Jokebook can and should remain on Votes for deletion/Jokebook and not debated in this forum. Also, if you start adding comments about specific Wikibooks on this page it will grow to unreasonable size and is hard to generalize.

I gave a much longer and fairly good essay on this topic as marked above, and I still believe that Wikibooks can be more than simply textbooks. The drive to delete all content on Wikibooks that is not similar to a college textbook is IMHO far too narrow of a definition. What should the future of Wikibooks be about? What sorts of content is acceptable?

More to the point, how do you define an "instructional resource"?

Here is a proposed change I would like to make to this policy, and I am seeking community input on this change before it becomes "official", unlike other changes that have been made in the past:


 * As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not acceptable because of the list of exclusions in this policy. The primary mission for Wikibooks is the creation of textbooks for instructional purposes.  A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class.  Other content may exist on Wikibooks, but it should still act in a supporting role for textbooks as a general instructional resource.

This isn't really that big of a change, but it does define more clearly what the "other" content is excpect to be like. Content similar to Organic Chemistry/Periodic table is a good example of supporting material (even though this is in an appendix of a Wikibook in this case).

Once consequence of this, however, is that content like Voter's Guide, Colonising Mars, and most of Computer and video games bookshelf would be subject to deletion. These topics have been debated before, but the big question is how do you make a policy here that permits some creativity but at the same time focuses the effort here to textbooks and textbook-like content? --Rob Horning 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't even try. I don't think thats what wikibooks should be doing.  Wikibooks was made for instructional resources.  Some of those fit in a classroom setting.  Some of them are more practical knowledge (how-to books, for example).  Others are fields that don't fit in a college or high school classroom.  These items should not be excluded, just because they aren't "textbooks".  Keep wikibooks as accepting non-fiction, and explicitly exclude areas we don't want.  Its always possible to add exclusions if we find more material we don't want.  Its next to impossible to remove exclusions, because a book will never grow to critical mass to see if its useful to us.  It would be deleted long before then.  --Gabe Sechan 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So should we revert Jimbo's addition here? Certainly what it means needs to be expanded a bit more somehow, even if I agree with your sentiments here.  Jimbo's wording can be, and is interpreted strictly on many VfD discussions as just textbooks alone and nothing more, with more of an attitude of going for more strictly college textbooks at that.  Wikibooks has certainly gone beyond that, and I think this official policy needs to reflect that change somehow, or some serious discussion should happen if we are to remove all non-textbook material altogether.  The two schools of thought were certainly played out with the Jokebook, where the inclusionists want to keep it here, and the deletionists wanted it gone for good never to come back.  It certainly sits right on the threshold of what could be considered an instructional material by a very loose definition.


 * I'm not trying to play that VfD out here again, but the point I'm making is that this is an unsettled question, and similar books are going to be popping up here on Wikibooks again and again with this issue unresolved. It seems as though Jimbo is either undecided himself on this issue, or that it is to become a continual point of argument for Wikibooks in the future, where each borderline case is to be decided by VfD.  That doesn't sound right either.  --Rob Horning 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." - my big objection to this is that it effectively restricts Wikibooks to producing textbooks that somebody else has already made. It would prevent Wikibooks from providing textbooks for new and less popular technologies and fields such as Inkscape and other up-and-coming open source software, just because they're too recent and (relatively) obscure to have been in an existing class.
 * A better definition would be "a textbook is a book which an official educational institution would use as a study text.". It's fitting, but there's more room for community consensus to come to a sensible result rather than being constrained by an arbitrary line.
 * P.S. Yes, this definition still means death to the computer game guides. --Irrevenant 12:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection of minors and adult material
I think there should be a subset of Wikibooks, a "Top Shelf", that is protected (as far as protection can be guaranteed on the net). "An Illustrated Guide to Photographing Hard Core" would be a valid Wikibook in this age of the internet porn industry but it definitely should not be accessible to a nine year old. A book on "Terrorist Methods" or "Domestic Explosives" or "Shoplifting Methods" should not be available to under 18s. They are all, probably, valid books. The Top Shelf would be implemented discretely so that, if an adult book is selected, it is held on a URL with adult ratings. RobinH 09:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. First off, having a garuntee mean anything is impossible-  we'd either need a huge number of admins, or we'd need to switch to an approval based edit system instead of a wiki.  Both of those are unacceptable answers.


 * Secondly, I do not think wikibooks should be enforcing censorship in any way. WHo gets to decide what is "objectionable"?  Is any picture of the human body?  Any mention of drugs?  A discussion on how to rip a cd to mp3?  Even if we start out with a small set of things banned, it would likely increase with time.  The problem is that the people most interested in such proceedings tend to be religious fanatics-  they will use it to force their version of morality down your throat, "for your own good".  Such problems end up causing more headaches than its worth.


 * Finally, there's just better ways to do it. You will *never* be able to properly protect a wiki page like that.  Claiming that you try just provides insentive for vandals to try harder.  If you want to do this, the correct way is to take static snapshots of books, so you know they aren't being changed.  I'd also claim that the best way to do this is not via wikimedia, but to let interested third parties do so-  this way wikimedia doesn't need to make censorship decisions, but instead allows whoever wishes ot do the work (hopefully multiple somebodies) to make their own decisions (hopefully slightly different ones for each).  --Gabe Sechan 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are Homer and don Quijote?
This is the first time i enter this site. I have seen your book categories but the most important of all categories is missing. Can anyone tell me where can I find literature books?. I searched for "Homer" and "don Quijote" with all possible spelling differences (Quijote/Qixote/quijote/quixote or Homer/homer/Homerius/homerius) but i cant find any important book here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.190.149 (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 15 April 2006


 * Try searching at Wikisource: Wikisource:Special:Search/Homer, Wikisource:Special:Search/Quijote.


 * Wikibooks are books written by the users of this web site. We do not write fiction here, and Homer and don Quijote do not edit this web site. For previously-published source texts, you want our sister project, Wikisource. --Kernigh 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that a long-term project is to eventually have some sort of searching tool that would allow you to search content on both sites or on other Wikimedia projects. The problem is that it is going to take some time to simply put all of this together, and for now we are concentrating on just the kinds of content on Wikibooks alone.


 * There are also annotated guides about some of this literature, in the form of a textbook about classical literature. If this is what you want, I would encourage you to start a Wikibook about Don Quijote or Homer and go into details about this literature, especially if you did it in a format similar to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter that went into depth about the characters, people, and themes of other literature.  That it couldn't be found about this more classical literature is mainly that nobody has put in the effort to write content of that nature.  Rather than complaining that it doesn't exist, it is encouraged that you do something about it and start writing content about it!  --Rob Horning 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Expand/Clarify Dictionary Policy
Could an instruction to link nouns to Wikipedia be added to the "Wikibooks is not a dictionary" policy? --Hagindaz 18:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it is a bad idea to have all the negative "Wikibooks is not..." instructions full stop. We really should be able to define what wikibooks is in positive terms (with it being implied that wikibooks is not anything that doesn't fall within what wikibooks is), Jguk 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks would not be a repository for video game manuals
The following was added to the policy:

Wikibooks is not a repository for video game manuals

Some content about video games could be appropriate, such as a textbook for an existing course on the impact of video games in our culture. But in general, game guides are not appropriate for Wikibooks.

I have removed it because it is too drastic of a change. It needs some discussion (here on en.wikibooks.org) first. --Kernigh 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC) just buzzing around and thought to throw in 2 cents. "too drastic of a change" is true, but more complicated than that and potentially misleading. The original charter is "textbooks" and video games really never did meet those criteria. What happened was a loose interpretation of the rules, owing probably in part to wanting to have ANY material on a newly started project. Wikibooks is full of stuff which doesn't really fit the prime criteria. Again, I think a bookshelf labeled "Fiction" and another labeled "POV" are probably very good ideas.

Is there a wikicity on videogames that isn't too specific? (biggest problem with wikicities, they are tiny micro-umbrellas.)

Another thought; there ought to be more than just a "what wikibooks is not" page, as in a "where to go to contribute on topics x,y,and z" page. Thanks fer listening... Prometheuspan 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this policy was put into place at all! Is this an attempt to remove the video games bookshelf entirely, or is this something a little more specific. For Jimbo to add this policy out of the blue like this, without any discussion or even what his mindset is on this issue is totally beyond reason. Or more specifically, where do you draw the line that doesn't really get things very confused so you start throwing everything out and essentially shut down this whole project?

BTW, as has been said before numerous times, Wikicitites (or Wikia now) is not justification for having or not having a Wikimedia project. It is a seperate website run by a seperate company and group, even though Jimbo happens to serve as the chairman of both groups, and there is some mixing of users between the two projects. And there are contributors that will only contribute to Wikimedia projects and not Wikia ones, primarly because of the advertising issues (where Wikia has advertising and Wikimedia projects don't).

I would welcome a reasonable and thoughtful conversation about this issue, but drastic changes like this one are too much, especially if done by one person... even if that person is Jimbo himself. Even a slight longer explaination here in this talk page would have been incredibly useful, to even explain motiviations like giving a talk or interview at such and such place, and being embaressed because some academian doesn't give credibility to Wikibooks because of the game guides. --Rob Horning 00:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If Jimbo was embarassed about some press release on Wikibooks, or if a grant was in danger because of Video Game guides, I would understand 100%. But nothing of that matter has been discussed. As said in my post in the next section; there are only 2 Jimbo posts in the past 5 months, and together, they consist of something like, 5 sentences, tops. --Dragontamer 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to Wikia http://gameinfo.wikia.com, there is Encyclopedia Gamia http://egamia.com and, as mentioned on the staff lounge, Strategy Wiki http://www.strategywiki.net – the fact that Strategy Wiki is now excited about guides moving from here to there might be reason enough to have a policy against game guides. All three of these are MediaWiki and use GNU FDL.

Actually, since I work on NetHack, it would be nice if I could move it to an actual gaming wiki. However, currently I have no way to delete the guide from Wikibooks if I move it, and I do not want to fork the guide. Maybe we should have a policy allowing users to delete a game guide if they want to move it. --Kernigh 01:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate fully, particularly as wikibooks has de facto allowed games walkthroughs for a large part of its existence, that there are those that will be reluctant to lose them from our library. However, I think Jimbo, and the WMF, are entirely right to ask them to leave wikibooks: they need to protect WMF's non-profit status, and, in line with their charter, they need to ensure that WMF's resources are being used for educational purposes. The details are no doubt open to discussion, together with how best to remove the material, but the general principle is non-negotiable.


 * To my mind, whether the precise text Jimbo added remains on the policy page or not, the issue of games walkthroughs is already covered by the bit at the top of the policy that says "As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not acceptable because of the list of exclusions in this policy. This is for textbooks. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." Indeed, games walkthroughs do not seem to fit within any section of the "what wikibooks is" part of the policy. Jimbo's request is more an, admittedly belated, request to enforce our own existing policies. Particularly bearing in mind that, although this is a request to enforce de jure policy that differs from de facto policy, it is important that enough time and consideration is given towards finding new and happy homes for the content that will be removed from wikibooks. It's also important to thank those who have contributed to them whilst they have been on wikibooks, wish them all the best in their new locations, and make clear to the contributors that they remain most welcome at wikibooks should they wish to read or contribute to textbooks.


 * For Jimbo's reasoning, which includes a useful exposition of what sort of books wikibooks should be hosting see this comment from Jimbo on the mailing list). It's really not too different from saying WB's content should comply with the general rule noted above, with a wide meaning given to "usable in an existing class". Jimbo's email says "The key point is that there have to be some kind of courses offered by some kind of serious institution of learning." It's clear that Jimbo intends "some kind" to be read widely - so it would include adult learning, professional courses, etc., [[User:Jguk|Jguk] 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How come none of this has been brought up here or in the Staff lounge? If there really was some issue with the WMF's resources, I would appreciate if Jimbo said something about it. As of now, the only posts Jimbo made within the past 5 months are those two edits that Jguk pointed out a few weeks ago. and . If there was some kind of issue with the WMF, I would at least hope that Jimbo would have brought it up by now. Even the post on the mailing list doesn't mention anything about WMF.


 * If "Use in a classroom" is the standard of what is to be accepted in Wikibooks, does How To Tie A Tie have to go? What about How To Escape the Headlock, and most of the other "How To" books? What about programming languages not taught in many classrooms or "fun" programming languages? Ex. Is a book on the BrainFuck programming language or the Unlambda programming language acceptable here?


 * What about games like Marine Doom or America's Army, which was used as a teaching tool in the US Marines/Army? Or a guide to that new "Brain Age" for Nintendo DS? These fit the criterion for teaching tools but are probably not used in a classroom (which seems a little blurry in Jimbo's mailing list post). What about a guide on RedCode assembly language? The sole purpose of which is to play "Core Wars"?


 * Basically, I see this as a change *far* too drastic. It changes everything I know about WB:WIW. It seems illogical to me to include W:Marine Doom] but not [[W:Doom II. If we include Doom II but exclude Quake... If we include First Person Shooters (games ilke Marine Doom) but exclude real time strategies... well, you can see where this is going. I really dont know where the line is drawn anymore. --Dragontamer 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jguk, computer and video game guides (and other game guides, and how-tos, and Puzzles...) are allowed under these two parts of WB:WIW:


 * 1) "Wikibooks hosts instructional resources." Need to know which weapon is for shooting which enemy, or how to build NetHack from source code? Those are instructions.
 * 2) "Wikibooks includes books based on Wikipedia articles" – Because Wikipedia has articles about computer and video games, Wikibooks can have books about them.

Also, "class" does not refer to a formal class at a university specifically, but to any class of persons in general.

Because computer and video game guides are not against any existing policy at Wikibooks, we would need a new policy before we can move them away. --Kernigh 16:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We clearly have different readings of what the current wording should mean (rather than what happens in practice on wikibooks at present). But all that means is that I see Jimbo's amendment as seeking to enforce what is currently written down as policy, whereas you see it as a change both to written policy and what happens in practice. Whichever one of us is right, however, does not really matter as it does not change the fact that the President of the Wikimedia Foundation, in his role as President of the Wikimedia Foundation, has stated that going forward computer and video game guides (and other books not meeting the criteria that they must be similar to textbooks used for accredited learning of some description) should not be on wikibooks and should (within a generous timeframe) be removed. Come the end of the day, and whether you agree with it or not, his decision is final. If you have not read it yet, please see Jimbo's email to me copied to the mailing list. All the best, Jguk 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have deliberately stayed out of this issue, even though my opinion on this matter is fairly obvious. "Jimbo says" IMHO is not justification any more and not legally binding because the WMF exists specifically to deal with decisions like this.  This is a policy decision that affects a good many users and is being done arbitrarily, not through some sort of community concensus process such as most of our current policies have been adopted.  If this is to be changed and accepted as an official act of the WMF, it should be done as an official action by the WMF board.  It hasn't been done that way.  If one person can add the policy change in, I, as one person, can remove it as well.  This decision IMHO is not final until it is a formal resolution by the WMF board, of which he is only the chair.  That the other members of this board may be considered puppets or mostly rubber stamp his decisions is a seperate issue.


 * For some strange reason the issue of the non-profit status of the WMF is being brought up. I am willing to argue that as a seperate issue, but my argument is that it is a non-issue because it is not going to affect the non-profit status unless you can show that the WMF is getting some sort of financial benefit for hosting these guides beyond simply an increase in voluntary donations.  This is well within the scope of the IRS guidelines for maintaining non-profit status and is clearly within the mission of the WMF in terms of being a web hosting service with a specific mission.


 * I understand that perhaps he is somewhat embaressed by the issue here of video game guides on Wikibooks, but I wish he would state it as such and try not to establish such an arbitrary policy but instead try to deal with deeper issues about what the mission of Wikibooks is, rather than what it is not. It is from this perspective that I strongly disagree with this action, and question if my involvement with this project is to continue.  --Rob Horning 06:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Marine Doom and America's Army
This is a subdiscussion that was on the Staff Page. To prevent people saying the same argument over and over on different pages, I suggest moving any live threads from the Staff page into this page and then responding. Just a suggestion, not enforced at all. --Dragontamer 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So what about video games like America's Army and Marine Doom? And then Brain Age that *really* blur the line of this new policy?--Dragontamer 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's wikipedia, not wikibooks. Wikipedia meets the educational mission of WMF by being an encyclopaedia, and it's reasonable to have articles on those games in an encyclopaedia. Wikibooks is for textbooks, the same or similar to textbooks used by learning institutions, Jguk 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats not the point. Marine Doom was used by the marines to *teach* marines combat. Similarly, America's Army is used by the US army to *teach* combat situations. These are games specifically designed to teach people, and try to be as realistic simulation as possible. Unlike chess, these games are not "case studies" of computer science AI. But instead, they are a form of education offered by a "serious institution of learning" (Combat learning, yes, but learning nonetheless). Other games fall into this catagory of "learning games"; the history section of America's Army in Wikipedia shows this issue pretty well. --Dragontamer 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

At present our books on Doom and America's Army are just game guides though. If we had serious textbooks showing (and solely directed at) their value as teaching tools then that would be another matter. I imagine such a book would not be so interesting for gamers though (no need for cheats and all the functionality, I guess). Can you see the focus of these books changing so substantially as to meet this requirement (realistically)? Jguk 18:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I could make the same argument for chess and go; they focus on the game and not on building a min-max tree for AI. Or how to build a computer openning moveset database, it only lists the classic openings to chess. (and we can go on and on about the differences between chess and video games, but that isn't the point right now)


 * But America's Army amd Marine Doom is different. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I gather from the wikipedia article Marine Doom that there are cases where the US Marines basically goes "Aighty privates! Your assignment for tonight is to beat mission 4 in Marine Doom". Lemme take a quote from the wikipedia article:


 * In 1996, General Charles C. Krulak, Commandant of the US Marine Corps issued a directive to use wargames for improving "Military Thinking and Decision Making Exercises".


 * Moreover, he entrusted the Marine Combat Development Command with the task to develop, exploit and approve computer-based wargames to train U.S. Marines for "decision making skills, particularly when live training time and opportunities were limited."


 * In this regards, I see a guide to Marine Doom falling under the same catagory as a guide to the TI-83 calculator. I haven't seen America's Army specifically mentioned anywhere yet as a "training tool", but in the wikipedia article America's Army, they note Rainbow Six as a training tool.


 * "In 2001 the Department of Defense licensed Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear from the French software company Ubisoft for training military personnel."


 * Sorry if it feels as if I'm changing my argument :) (cause now the focus is on Rainbow Six), but I think the overall idea is still the same. So, unless the wikipedia article is wrong (I doubt it), Rainbow Six, the game itself, is used as the training exercize. Again, this would fall under the same catagory as a how-to guide on reading and taking notes on a textbook. The game (Rainbow Six or Marine Doom) is the learning exersize, the guide simply tells you best way to play the game. The textbook is the learning exersize, and the guide tells you the best way to read the textbook. (or a guide to shakespeare, and so on, so forth) --Dragontamer 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect the Chess book, if it is destined to remain on Wikibooks, will continue to exist as a book that teaches chess strategy rather than an exposition on AI techniques. The question is whether there is interest in the educational community in teaching chess strategy. I don't know the answer to that question, as I don't know about teaching chess and haven't looked into it. Some questions I think we should be asking in regards to Jimbo's recent thoughts are:


 * Is the book suitable to use in a classroom setting, as the textbook for an already existing course/seminar/whatever?
 * If not, how does the book need to be modified to make it usable in that context?
 * How extensively would the book need to be changed? Is it sensible to change the purpose of the book rather than allowing work to continue on the same tack on another wiki?


 * What I'm aiming at here is that we need to be paying attention to how the books are going to be used. For the academic books (and all instructional books) we shouldn't be working in a vacuum. Regardless of policy issues. --Brian Brondel 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Main Point
The idea that Wikibooks can be limited by a definition that focuses solely on "instructional" value is doomed to failure, whether proposed by the President of the Wikimedia Foundation or not. If there is a specific objection to "game guides," that needs to be stated, and a policy based on it formulated, so that it can be tailored to inclusion of that which is accepted by the community, and exclusion of problematic contributions. The classic example has to be the Chess wikibook, because there simply is no way such a book can be supported if the definition of wikibooks is drawn to limit them to classroom instructional materials of a normal nature. You don't have classes on chess, in general. And if you DO allow a book on chess to exist, how can you stop one on bridge, or go? And once they are in place, you open up the realm of other such games. And certainly someone can probably point to a class somewhere that deals with computer games, strategy of computer games, design and development of such games, etc. Does that fact alone bring "game guides" within the policy which is proposed?

If the issue is that Wikibooks needs to be narrowed to true "textbooks," then there will be a considerable amount of content here which will have to be pruned. I brought this very subject up in here months ago with regard to someone's "book" on some particular type of medical "treatment" which they were essentially promoting through their book. At the time, I thought it a violation of the policy on WB:WIW; I got no one who paid attention to the issue. Wikibooks has a TON of such "books" and that has to be considered when deciding what to do.

But as for the specific issue of "game guides" and the like, it seems to me that a policy on them should be held in abeyance unless and until the broader issue of What is TRULY a Wikibook is decided, unless there is a specific concern about "game guides." If there is, let's see someone speak up about it (perhaps the important, but not yet dictatorily-powered President of the WMF?).DSYoungEsq 17:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have said my take on this many months ago. My argument is that game guides are more helpful to Wikibooks than they are hurtful. There are only 2/3 things they can possibly waste is bandwith and space, but so do any other book here that you don't read. (Ex: if you don't like German, it can be argued that it wastes bandwith).


 * Reputation is the other possible harmful side effect of the game guides. But from all the press I've read on Wikibooks, our assessment would have been the same with or without game guides. There was a quote along the lines of wikibooks has very few educational books, and the few complete books it has are game guides. We can very easily change the situation to simply wikibooks has very few educational books, but I don't think that is going anywhere.


 * As for help, the effects are obvious. First off, I am a wikibooks editor because of Game Guides. Game Guides provide a safer newbie ground for editors. Few newbies have the nerve to go up to a complete book like German and make major changes or additions. But it is easy for them to add new modules and grow books such as Maple Story. With that, they gain experiance as they learn software and wikimarkup, and overall gain the skills to make those corrections they were too scared to do in the first place.


 * Additionally, game guides increase the userbase of wikibooks. I don't know much about wikis and long term wiki growth, but it seems to me that a larger contributing userbase is always a good thing to a wiki. And obviously, video game editors do contribute to wikibooks, and help grow the userbase. --Dragontamer 23:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward on this

 * To aid discussion (and no more) I have created the page Books possibly in contravention with WIW as a first shot at what books may have to be moved (although I note straight off that I imagine some of these will remain). I have also consolidated Jimbo's comments on the matter at Comments from the President of the Wikimedia Foundation, Jguk 21:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Games are taught at universities
A variety of games are taught at a number of universities. One example would be Computer Games and Simulations for Investigation and Education which is a class taught at MIT. —MJBurrage 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How to program games, how to render 3D game environments, and even how to prove mathematically that solving Sudoku is NP Complete are all subjects that are taught at respectable universities. How to play the games themselves are not. Consider this akin to most hobbies or pasttimes: How to go hiking, how to watch TV, how eat snack food, etc. Making your Doritos is an excercise in nutrition, chemistry, and baking, while eating your doritos is not. see the difference? The flip side of this coin however, are other "more popular" games, such as chess, poker, baseball, basketball, etc. These subjects are taught at respected and accredited institutions, both the theory behind them, and the strategy for playing these games. Unfortunately, this divide leaves a bit of a grey area when deciding what stays and whay goes. The powers that be have declared video-game guides are on the far side of that line, and the community at large did not muster enough support to reverse that decision (assuming such a reversal would have been possible given enough support). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've lost track of how many people in this community want video games here, or at least somewhere in the wikimedia/another wiki. As for those who are arguing for Video games to leave, I have counted 4 who have made comments on removing Video Games from here. Lord Voldemort, You (Whiteknight), JGuk, and Jimbo Wales. While right now, the chances of the community reversing that decision is dwindling (many people have left instead of stay and fight), I would like to think that there was a time when there was enough support that the decision could have been reversed. --Dragontamer 06:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I've pointed out where "Marine Doom" strategy technically was taught in the US Marines, and how Starcraft is taught in Korea. The "Respected and Accredited" institution metric fails to reject those games under that criteria, at least. --Dragontamer 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So pages on a game are ok IF they have been used in a class, but not otherwise? Does that mean that any game I decide to use in the college classes I teach (I am an adjunct with the Vermont State Colleges) can then be added to WikiBooks. That seems a little odd and hard to track/verify. It makes much more sense to me that since games are used educationaly in a number of settings (including being played in some classes) that games in general should be allowed here. If that is not acceptable, then all the games should go… But where to in the wikimedia set of projects? —MJBurrage 18:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect to computer game walkthroughs being disallowed. How does that effect pages on board games (I had such a page summarily deleted by an admin recently) —MJBurrage 18:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

explain
"I don't understand"

Gawsh, i think i do, and, i'd like to explain.

this is about the information resource function of informational engineering, and what happens if the content as a whole ends up significantly departing from what is in the libraries best interest for convincing the general public that we are indeed a library.

Its a social and informational engineering tactic, and as such, it is remarkably sensible.

The flipside from my head is the problem of excessive exclusivity. This is a GOOD tool for the purpose of insuring the success of Wikibooks as an information resource AT ITS CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY STATE. It is a Bad overall idea for the long term library because it limits the scope and size of the umbrella.

The larger the umbrella, the more applications the information service has, the more clients the information service gets.

I'd like to quote Jimbo. We have to draw a line somewhere, and we can argue internally endlessly without getting much resolution. So a useful technique is to try really hard to reference some external standards.

This is true; we need standards by which to generate reliable and useful information as an information service. The real question here, is how and why and what and the particulars and details of those standards. A key issue from my perspective is the duration of implementation of an engineering tactic. Prometheuspan 21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1. What about guides to games that are not video or computer games? These can include guides on how to play chess and go (which we already have), bridge, whist, etc.. together with suitable strategies; conceivably this may also include more modern games such as risk or monopoly or cluedo. To my mind, guides on well-known intellectual games such as these have educational value and are worth keeping, but your comments would be welcome.

My question would be whether or not there exist classes at accredited institutions on the subject which use something similar _as a textbook_.

Notice how this works: first, we can be quite broad in what constitutes a textbook, for example at my sister's cooking school, they use a cookbook for a textbook, no question.

But in virtually every university, there are classes on Shakespeare which use Hamlet as material, but not as _textbook_ per se.

I am unaware of any course at any accredited institution which teaches risk or monopoly or clue. Chess and go, probably, but I actually don't know. Doom? No.

For good psyche reasons, nobody writes textbooks using Doom as a reference resource. Could it be done in theory? Sure. Not by me, and, more to the point, what is there isn't that.

The problem we are trying to solve here is that geek pursuits are not always scholastic, and geeks have the time and energy and motivation to write books for geeks that aren't scholastic. Might this ever be in the pervue of Wikibooks? Maybe 10 years from now when Wikibooks has an up and functioning library. Right now, it causes system friction. Entropy ensues. Prometheuspan 21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Your comments included a direct reference to wikibooks having textbooks suitable for "elementary school, high school, or college courses" (and I'm not sure what age groups you meant by "college" as it seems to mean different things in the US from what it means in the UK). I trust this list was not meant to be exhaustive and that you would agree that textbooks related to professional learning (eg accountancy), adult learning (eg cookery) and (if not covered by "college") university learning are suitable for wikibooks.

Yes! I think we should be quite broad about it. The key point is that there have to be some kind of courses offered by some kind of serious institution of learning.

While i agree, in theory, and in principle with the engineering tactic, i think that the primary flaw is that there lacks provisos or explanations. What problems are you trying to solve with the "rule" Jimbo?

Perhaps the more important question is "Can we think of some other standards which would be more inclusive and still adress the problem?"

Personally, I don't think that is such a tall order. I remember a similar moment for my poor little "caught in the middle" brain on Dennis Kuciniches website not so long ago. On the issue of abortion. You see, I totally want there to never be an Abortion ever. I think that is a great and wonderful goal. However, legislating that won't solve as many problems as it will create, and the real solutions to the real problems are an order of magnitude more complicated than that. In order to never have abortions, you have to engineer a more just and supportive society with also a saner approach en totalia to human sexuality. The problem is circular. Those persons most opposed to Abortion are incidentally those perpetuating the social paradigm which is most responsible for Abortions as a social outcome. Prometheuspan 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I noted above under "Wikibooks hosts instructional resources", I vote for "a textbook is a book which an official educational institution would use as a study text." because Jimbo's definition would prevent textbooks being produced on things such as up-and-coming open source software, just because they're too new to have hit a classroom yet, or too specialised to warrant a localised course. --Irrevenant 12:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks policy also requires that material presented at wikibooks be verifiable, and that we do not engage in either original research nor speculation. Unfortunately, until a future peice of software ships, usage of that software is open to speculation, and any information is not directly verifiable. Some facts about upcoming software might be verifiable by the project members, but their contributions on the topic could be construed as original research. It's certainly a messy topic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly confused by specific deletion
Well, Votes_for_deletion was finally voted on and I thought we reached a concensus about this. But... Jimbo then said "'I (Jimbo Wales) deleted it myself because it is manifestly not a textbook.'". As said in that section, I'm (very) confused by this, especially noting that that book/howto definitly falls under "instructional resources" IMO anyway.

PS: I added a link here because of this adds yet again to the continuous controversy of WB:WIW. I don't know anymore what Jimbo wants. Learning to Rip Karaoke Cds aren't instructional resources, but books on Chess and Go strategy are?

Finally, please Jimbo, at least explain your decisions a wee bit more before taking another 2/3 week or 6 month or 2 year vacation from wikibooks. I am willing to help out here in Wikibooks if I know what I'm doing. But these recent decisions you've made in the past few weeks totally contradict what I think Wikibooks is. --Dragontamer 21:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo is looking at things in strict terms: he wants wikibooks to restrict itself to textbooks that can be used in accredited institutions, not just any BS instructional nonsense that people feel fit to unload onto the wikibooks servers. There are chess clubs and chess schools out there, and I don't know about Go, but there might be some of them as well. Much of the information on the How-Tos bookshelf is material that is covered in vocational schools and seminar programs. Ripping CD media is not taught anywhere, by anyone respectable, ever. I don't mean to sound aggressive, but the line between intolerable nonsense, and acceptable material is very wide. --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not that I see this as a deletion specifically on Ripping CD media, but instead a deletion on all things "less educational" than Ripping CD media, which I consider anyway, the whole How-tos bookshelf.


 * I understand that some of these books shouldn't be on wikibooks, but if we make the cut-off line on Ripping CD media... the whole bookshelf has to go except maybe 4 or 5 books. I mean, How To Build A Pykrete Bong and Growing Medicinal and Recreational Cannabis and How to find a book and MythTV. If we go strictly by "accredited institutions", I doubt there is any institution that teaches about wikis yet, but I feel Wiki_Science has a place here. --Dragontamer 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * why was growing medicinal and recreational cannabis removed? --Agent Agent (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A little more clarification (I don't think I put it strongly enough). Wiki Science is, for the most part, "BS instructional nonsense" at the moment. There are no colleges or institutions that tell even teach you how to set up a Wiki server or be an admin on one; let alone the community effects of Wikis. But I wouldn't dare delete it and it is 100% a textbook that deserves to be on wikibooks. --Dragontamer 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The books that you listed, I think really do deserve to be deleted. Wikibooks does not need to host instruction about growing pot, or constructing bongs. In fact, i may very well nominate those books to be deleted myself soon. There are a number of nonsense books on that bookshelf, and unfortunately, we do need to clean house eventually. However, a number of books there are worthwhile, and a number of them could be taught in educational programs or vocational schools. "how to find a book" sounds like library science to me, which is an accredited major in many universities. "Wiki science" could be taught in an educational program, although it hasn't been yet. I can guaruntee you that no self-respecting school is teaching people how to make bongs out of pykrete, however. There is alot of nonsense on the how-to bookshelf, and on all the bookshelves for that matter. that does not mean that the entire bookshelf is vulnerable. --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Medicinal Cannabis is used in 11 of the 50 States of the USA. While I'm quite neutral on this topic of politics (I don't care which way, but I won't smoke personally) it is most definitly a subject that "could be taught" in the future. Bongs... meh, I dunno. But as an issue, I can see it as legal, and there hookah bars where Bongs are used. I'll tell you that this is the first time I've heard the word "pykrete", but from what it seems, it can be taught in an Art School and a Bong for a hookah bar can be seen as a project. In that context, you can have a subject that "could be taught" in the future.


 * Which is why I *really* hate this "teaching" metric. Too vauge and doesn't get us anywhere. --Dragontamer 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but if everything around here was easy, they could just write up a bunch of bots to do this crap for us. sometimes i feel like i spend so much more time trying to figure out policy then i do actually contributing to books. whatever, it's a hobby. --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Accredited institution" metric
Recently in VfD, a lot of deletions are being decided by the taught at "Accredited institution" metric that Jimbo Wales seems to use a lot as well.

While this is a very simple metric and does seem to serve Wikibooks well, I don't think it is a worthwhile argument to use for or against a wikibook.

For example: The Open Source movement in general has not been taught in any Accredited Institution that I know of, yet if a book on the Open Source movement was written, I'd keep it. (Ex: A book on the different OSS licenses or even on the movement itself as modern History).

An even better example: Wikis have not come out anywhere that I know of even in the general press and books. While I can name several books on the OSS (Open source software), I cannot name any on wikis, let alone "Accredited institutions". Yet Wiki Science should stay on Wikibooks.

Naturally, these subjects "feel" academic, to me anyway. Why shouldn't they be in an "accredited institution"? Why, we can probably predict them to be school subjects in the near future. Well, first off, I'm a geek and obsessed with this stuff. And anyone else who is obsessed with OSS and wikis is also, probably a geek. But someone who isn't used to Wikis (aka, those people out there) may object to the idea that an Internet Phenomenon is a school subject. Wikis are probably classified as that thing that started up when Blogging got popular, and why, BBS (Bulleten board systems) and Usenet aren't school subjects so where would Wikis fit in?

My point is this: If we change this metric to include subjects that might be school subjects in the future, we are left with a test that is so pure bias it aint even funny. The automobile was considered a fad for many years when it first came out, and today we have college degrees offered on automobile engineering.

Whats not to say it could happen to Video Games (also, a very recent subject)? How are we to say that Video Games are not going to be considered academic art in 10 years, as Movies and  Books are today, especially with the explosive popularity of this subject? (okay, I admit, that is a cheap shot at keeping Video games here, but the point still remains)

Leave the metric as it is, and subjects that only exist academically today, and we cut out Wiki Science and Many programming languages  that are technically not taught academically today. --Dragontamer 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I say we keep the "accredited Institution" metric just long enough so we can clean out some junk, and then we abandon it. --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the term so far as to determine what is accredited is very subjective, and usually a part of a mutal admiration society rather than anything really official. Very rarely they are even government endorsed, but at least in the USA the accreditation agencies are completely independent of any government body for the most part.  I know of some universities that deliberately avoid the accrediation standards particluarly because they don't want to have a 3rd party messing with their curriculum.  They get students anyway, and don't care because they choose to be outside of the accreditation process.  The only time you really have to worry about it anyway as a student is if you choose to transfer between institutions, and my experience is that even between accredited colleges they tend to treat college credits as essentially worthless if they didn't originate at the institution that you are trying to get a degree from.  Or as "empty credits" that can't count toward specific graduation requirements.


 * I think a much better metric is simply if you can teach a class with the content at all. This would permit how-to manuals and stuff like working with bio-diesel production.  It would also have excluded the White Heritage Society book, as well as most of the content that has been rejected on the VfD page already.  It would be very difficult to see how you can teach a class out of the content that was in Jokebook for instance, a nagging issue for Jimbo and the other WMF board members.  Many how-to clinics are rarely accredited (take the Home Depot building classes, for instance), nor do they need to be.  But these are real classes taught by a real instructor often in a real classroom setting.  This can also include much of the adult eductional curriculum sometimes taught as a community service by some school districts, where members of the community can teach a topic to somebody else usually for free or a very nominal fee.


 * When you think about Wikibooks contributors, this is IMHO the model we should be following anyway, where this is a Wiki of free content where we are trying to share knowledge about a topic to other people. If you can't teach the subject out of the contents of the Wikibook because it is opinions alone or does not contain factual material for you to learn, how can you call it a textbook?  --Rob Horning 00:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been using the "accredited Institution" metric keeping in mind all the different vocational schools out there. Vocational schools do teach a number of the subjects that a regular university or public school may not. For instance, a vocational program may very well teach a class about pykrete, but they are highly unlikely to teach a class about using pykrete to construct a bong. There are even "accredited" programs to teach such nonsense as astrology, even if the accrediting entity is dubious.


 * I would venture to say, however, that outside an accredited institutional setting, groups of people could sit around teaching each other how to construct a pykrete bong. Therefore, i put forward that the "can it be taught" metric is worthless if we don't account for the classroom setting in which it is taught. I instead would venture to say that the material must be taught (or be able to be taught) at a respected institution. Senior centers teaching classes on backgammon or chess then would easily qualify. Afterschool programs teaching kids about crafts or whatever would also qualify. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And for that matter, the Wikimedia Foundation teaching people about WikiScience would qualify under the respected institution metric as well. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please; explain. How does Wiki Science identify itself with a respected institution metric? I dunno about you, but it sounds a little circular logic to say that "because we teach Wiki Science, it deserves a spot here". :-) We are teaching video games after all right now, as the guides are here on Wikibooks. We were teaching in the Jokebook, when the jokebook was up a few months ago. Etc. etc.


 * Finally: now we simply have shifted the question from the metric, to the definition of "accredited institution". What is the difference between a Chess Club and a Starcraft Clan for example? From what I've seen, Koreans are crazy about Starcraft. (If that video doesn't load, it is basically a starcraft duel with a giant crowd watching with those big #1 fingers and paint all over their faces and stuff for their favorite player. Sorry there is a Starcraft game going on :-/) I could imagine big enough gatherings for a small class on basic Starcraft strategy over there.


 * What is different about a Senior Center teaching chess and a school club with sponsor teaching say, Video Game strategy to each other? Popularity? --Dragontamer 01:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can imagine a Starcraft strategy seminar, but I think the question is whether one actually exists. If it does, I think it would be appropriate for us to develop a textbook around the course content. If not, I don't think that would belong here. Brian Brondel 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with that statement, is again. I can only imagine a seminar on Wiki Science. I've never seen one in RL before. --Dragontamer 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is no conceivable difference between a senior center teaching a class on chess, and a starcraft clan teaching it's members about starcraft. Judging from that video, I would say that in at least a parts of this world, people who teach starcraft effectively would be very well respected. With wikiscience, there are definately respectable people and organizations who might see fit to teach the subject: it is, after all, a respectable subject. The wikipedia/wikibooks help pages do teach about wiki science, as does Meta (in far greater detail). I would venture to say that wikimedia is reasonably respected by most people. If you follow this line of logic, we can keep the video-game guides, but we can allso effectively git rid of the drug books, the hacking books, the dating guides, and all sorts of unrespectable rubbish. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Drug books... thats a difficult one to pin down as well. For example, mixing drinks would be 100% acceptable, while MJ is boarder-line, and heroine on the side of "Only in Wikibooks for the Netherlands" :-p But anyway, there is no clear cut line on Drug books, as using a bong to smoke tobacco is totally legal, and "respectable".


 * Hacking books is also a touchy subject. The knowledge *to* hack is respectable as well. Reverse-Engineering brought us Open Office (RE the .doc file) and Samba, and is connected very very strongly to the assembly language. Computer security books would need to explicitly label common hacking attacks, and even maybe give a tutorial on how it is done.


 * Dating guides... well, that is rubbish :-p But looking at Wikipedia's large repository of Sex sex and more sex, that may be a little difficult to hold off on. But I'd rather not have it here on Wikibooks in my opinion :-) --Dragontamer 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that drug books, in and of themselves need to disappear, so long as the material is looked at from an objective, professional manner. Having a book written by "DJ Nuggets", using all manner of street slang is inappropriate. Hacking is another subject that I am a little touchy on, because I have done extensive work on the Reverse Engineering book, and would hate to see that one get deleted. However, I am strongly in favor of deleting or merging the Computer Hacking book, because I don't feel that book is well-written enough, or professional enough to stay here on wikibooks. As for the game guides, I don't think it necessary for there to be a class taught on every specific game in order to make the point that there are classes taught on some games. There are certainly games in this world that are taught in respected institutions: football, chess, etc. I'm sure if there was enough money and popularity to be had from teaching videogames, those games would be taught in respected institutions as well. Sexuality is another tough subject to consider, but again, if we look at it from an objective, professional point of view there shouldn't be a problem. I've been preparing an outline for such a book, to cover human sexuality from a neutral, objective point of view HERE on my user page. If I can get enough support for such a book, I would love to create it on an appropriate bookshelf. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there some kind of policy here that prevents books from staying because they are humorous? "DJ Nuggets" is obviously a joke aimed at the population of who will read the book. Regardless of the little humor in and out of the book; that MJ guide was *excellent*, with more information than everything in our Gardening book combined. It was specific enough to detail the best makeup of the fertilizers for MJ.


 * And professional quality stuff (like the outline of your book suggests) doesn't explain what I'm seeing over at Wikipedia. :-/ --Dragontamer 06:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The "accredited institution" metric is not useful. Students in accredited institutions need texts about essentially everything, including texts about how to build bombs and play video games. They need to read biased texts (violates WB:NPOV). They need to read source texts (see Wikisource). They need to read (and write!) fictional works. They need to read about how to play StarCraft, not so that they can play StarCraft, but so that they can study those who do. StarCraft was within the scope of Wikibooks, and permissible by policy, before we started moving the various video game books off-wiki.

Literally, anything written in sentences can be used at an accreddited institution, except the most useless junk. We already have plenty of metrics to delete junk ("no meaningful content", no "soapbox", ...).

I believe that the scope of Wikibooks should be defined differently; I started working on a draft in What is Wikibooks/Unstable, which other users are welcome to edit (even to make it contradict with itself). --Kernigh 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would students need those things? I got through college without ever reading any Starcraft walkthroughs or books about how to build a bomb. If students need these, why aren't they at every university bookstore? I agree that anything could in theory be used in a teaching environment, but some things aren't and shouldn't be. Brian Brondel 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm sure you went through without reading advanced books on AI (unless you were a Comp Sci major) or on Game Theory (unless you are a math major). Again, as Kernigh said; this metric accepts stuff that Wikibooks doesn't allow (biased reports, such as Mein Kampf), source texts (like shakespeare) and fictional works. Additionally, this metric rejects stuff that Wikibooks *does* allow (such as Wiki Science, which is technically original research and not taught at universities, and many programming languages not taught at universities. Many Universities don't teach Programming:Objective-C for example)


 * What do you call a metric that rejects what we accept, and accepts what we reject? Useless! --Dragontamer 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Respected Institution" Metric
I feel that the metric "It must be taught (or be able to be taught) at a Respected Institution", is a far better metric for material here on wikibooks then the "Accredited Institution" metric that has previously been put forward. Consider the fact that "accredited institutions" would essentially cover: colleges, universities, grade-schools, vocational schools, etc. Now, consider the list of institutions that are respected: un-accredited universities, boy/girl scouts, senior centers, home-depot instructional classes, church groups, day cares, Driver's Ed, substance abuse programs (AA, AlAnon, etc), and so forth. There is a large wealth of information that is taught by such organizations that probably deserves to be here on wikibooks. If enough people feel the same way on this as I do, i would probably like to propose an official change to current policy to reflect this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research Clause
I want a little bit of clarification on the "No Original Research" clause here, because I am in a sticky situation. I am currently working on a number of research projects, some of which (hopefully all!) will end up being published in journals, and presented at conferences or whatever. Now, if i write up a new report on my research and publish it in an academic journal, am I then free to write about it here (citing my own artical in the journal as a reference), or Is that not allowed because it is my original research to begin with? Or, if that isn't allowed, would another wikibooks member be able to contribute content based on my published artical? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would certainly be appropriate for another user to reference your writings. On WP, it might be viewed as bad form to write about yourself or a topic on which you have a vested interest. If your research is "new scientific research" rather than, say, historical research on a topic it would probably be inappropriate for WB by virtue of the fact that your research wouldn't be taught somewhere. Kellen T 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Video game manuals
Having read a post from Whiteknight in the Staff Lounge, I find myself agreeing with him that the time is right for WB:WIW to explain our current position on video game manuals. I suggest, as a temporary measure, to reinstate Jimbo's addition to WB:WIW, which was to add under a heading of "Wikibooks is not a repository for video game manuals" the following text:


 * Some content about video games could be appropriate, such as a textbook for an existing course on the impact of video games in our culture. But in general, game guides are not appropriate for Wikibooks.

Any objections? Jguk 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd just like to know how this would better Wikibooks, and then I can rest assured.--Dragontamer 06:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By removing books that are not textbooks from Wikibooks, Wikibooks will be in a position to become truly focused. This should enable us to attract more writers and readers in so that we can become a leading resource for free textbooks, which is, after all, Wikibooks' aim, Jguk 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats not exactly the answer I expected :-) It doesn't answer why we couldn't attract these writers and readers while video game manuals still were on Wikibooks.


 * Case in point; you (Jguk) came to wikibooks even though game manuals were still here. Do you know anyone, personally or online, who would have left wikibooks because of the presence of video game manuals? I'll take your word on it (if you say so), but is seems so farfetched to me that someone truely interested in sharing knowledge would be appauled so much by Video Game manuals that he/she wouldn't contribute. --Dragontamer 11:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally; I would be one to argue that people now know less of what we are about than before this whole video game guide thingy. Example: we were already in a process of expelling Wikiversity, and had plenty of books in WB:VFD that we knew we didn't want. We were already focused, why did we have to change?


 * The metrics we used to use to judge whether a book would fail/pass WB:VFD don't work anymore. "Not a textbook" is such a vauge definition; and I argue that no one really knows the difference between a textbook or a non-textbook. For example: we all know that Chess Strategy is a "textbook" (for whatever odd reason... I guess "Jimbo Says" is reason enough), while you argued in WB:VFD that the pages on wireless internet aren't textbooks (and loads of other materials that *are* studied in colleges, and as a profession).


 * Before we can focus on "textbooks", we have to define "textbooks". What classifies a textbook? Content? Or matters like layout (FAQ pages vs Book with exersizes/chapters)?


 * Basically; we can sit around and try and figure out the difference between the spectrum of Go, Chess, Connect 4, Brain Age, Zelda, Tetris, Mario and Counter-Strike, or we can admit that there really isn't a difference and actually lay down a solid line one way or the other, and get rid of the confusion once and for all. (Unless you know of a difference that I don't) --Dragontamer 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks should be a repository for GUIDES and textbooks. We should ensure that we are not behind the times on this issue, soon internet games will be the principle games played on computers and users will need outside guides and eventually textbooks to deal with the laws within the games. It is interesting that there is no consensus on this issue, given this and the harmless nature of including games, Jimbo and Jguk might, perhaps, remove the ban. Please. RobinH 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's not just Jimbo and jguk. -- LV [User talk:Lord Voldemort 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that is the case, but I wish this whole thing would have been debated in the Game manual guidelines page, with the Staff Lounge discussion folded into to this policy page. Instead, it was argued and fought with admin tools and mass deletions, with accusations and heated words flying everywhere and people leaving the project.  That is something that should never have happened.  And frankly I think it was Jimbo who stirred the pot up with his comments, but then didn't follow up with those comments when some serious questions where raised, and the rest of us trying to "divine" the thoughts of Jimbo.  I hope that this project settles down to some sanity for awhile with the current status quo.  I don't like a Wikibooks that is strictly a video game walkthrough, and of that I do object.  BTW, this was something that was becoming a defacto policy even before Jimbo stirred up the pot, and would have eventually become a part of Wikibooks standards.  And as I've said repeatedly, I think video game books are being deleted because of the topic, not because of the content or its similarity to a textbook.  --Rob Horning 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Board game rules
What is the status of books on the rules of board games and card games? I see that there are still a number of these, but I had a book on the rules of a board game summarily deleted earlier this year.

If it is limited to games that have been used in a class, than what if I teach it in one of my classes? (I am an adjunct with the Vermont State Colleges)

If board games rules are not acceptable here, then where in the wiki project? —MJBurrage • TALK  • 15:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is unfortunatly one of the gray areas that I don't like about the new policy here. Arguably, it can go both sides with the current policy. Either way you do it, if an admin decides to delete the project, you can still have all the source and plaintext to your book. To my knowledge, there is no mediawiki project for games.
 * Perhaps if you said what game it is, we could help? --Dragontamer 04:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The book in question (vis-à-vis the deletion) was about Formula Dé. The linked Wikipedia article covers the game pretty well from an encyclopedic fashion, but since the games publication there were tournaments that used additional rules not found in the box. I had originally posted the rules at Wikisource, where (based on the release date) someone alleged that there was a copyright issue. Long story short, game rules cannot be copyrighted, only long text descriptions of those rules I had only posted the short rules, and a list of tracks, but once the copyright specter was raised my defense—including case law on the specific topic of game rules being public domain—was of no use.

When I offered to write my own explanation of the rules—not legally required for rules this short, but I wanted to keep the information available—I was told that then would be my original work and therefore not allowed at Wikisource for that reason. In this course of events someone suggested Wikibooks, which is where I went next. The rules were only up here for days before they were summarily deleted for being about a game.

Lastly, just to be clear, I have not actually used this game in a class. With that line—in my previous comments—I was trying to show the flaw in the “used in a class” metric for whether a book is acceptable here. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "To my knowledge, there is no mediawiki project for games."
 * I know of at least one wiki that discusses board games and card games.
 * I suspect some of the other wiki for games also discuss board games. (Some of them even use the Mediawiki software, although I don't know of any sponsored by the Wikimedia foundation).
 * Even if all kinds of games were allowed at wikibooks, perhaps one of those other wiki would still be a better place for discussing those games.
 * Rather than a harsh "Don't talk about that here. We delete anything that mentions it.",
 * perhaps it would be better to reword the policy something more like
 * "People at wiki for games are happy to see people talk about games on their wiki. If you want to discuss a particular game, feel free to ask at the Staff_lounge which wiki would be the most appropriate one. Instead of writing a game guide all by yourself on one wiki, while someone else unknowningly writes an independent guide on the same game on some other wiki all by himself, it is much more fun to collaborate on a game guide, and the results generally turn out better."
 * --DavidCary 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Referencing tax-exempt status
This is more a debate about the unstable version. A new clause was added that states:


 * The Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization which was approved as such by application to the US Government based on a particular charter of operations, and we have NO CHOICE but to follow that charter. Details of 501(c)(3) are given at: Tax exempt status for your organization. The charter for Wikimedia is at : Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc..

IMHO this is something that simply should not be a part of this page, ever. For two huge reasons:


 * 1) Wikibooks is not strictly about what is legal or not legal in the USA
 * 2) This is an attempt to give specific legal advise by people patently unqualified to give it.

More to the point: I don't think that with very few exceptions there has been any of the content on Wikibooks that would in fact violate the non-profit provisions of the IRS Internal Revenue Code, specifically section 503 (c). The only real issue is if we are doing something that is openly promoting a commercial product or service, or supporting a political philosophy. The NPOV policies alone more than compensate for any real issues here on this point, and are far more restricting than anything the IRS is going to be using as rationale to start requiring the WMF to pay some sort of taxes or revoking the tax-exempt status of the WMF.

Invoking the WMF charter is simply silly. It is also something that is easily modified in the sense that it would only take a vote of the WMF board to change the charter with a filing to the State of Florida and some minor legal paperwork. Not only that, but the charter specifically states that the WMF is for the developing of open-content written works, and then goes into some details of what kinds of stuff the WMF is doing. Wikibooks is mentioned as an example of what could be developed, not what it is restricted from doing. None of the content, even the Jokebook, would violate this charter in the least.

Prove me wrong. I want to see a specific example of content that would have been found acceptable even six months ago on Wikibooks that would have also violated the IRS tax code and revoked tax-exempt status for the WMF. I don't think you can find any. Like I said, NPOV policies as well as the specific exclusions on this page, and other policies like WB:FUP would more than be sufficient to steer us well clear of any potential violations of this tax-exempt status. Indeed the only thing I can come up with that might even remotely cause some problems is if we started to offer for sale merchandise on this website (aka published dead-tree books). Potentially even organizing such commercial activity might be problematic (which is one reason why I have been careful with even suggesting this). I don't see that happening any time soon, and that activity can be easily seperated onto other servers or even into other organizations to help maintain the tax-exempt status for the WMF.

In short, let's get rid of this whole clause. I don't know why Jimbo is raising the objection at all in the first place, and it has nothing to do with what is happening on Wikibooks. As long as all of the content is available under the GFDL (I didn't think that was negotiable), and maintains an NPOV, we will never have to worry about violating the tax-exempt status regardless of what the content of the material is like. And even books like How to cause havoc or even blatant pornography are already removed regularly, which would be the only other reason why Wikibooks would come under IRS scrutiny. This is a completely unneeded and irrelevant section. --Rob Horning 10:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Organizations can and do do things that are outside their charter; and charters can be easily changed. 501(c)(3) educational organizations have a very wide range of acceptable activities; indeed they can do just about anything except lobbying for legislation. Totally unnecessary. Kellen T 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, there are legal issues that need to be considered. We can remove this particular clause from the policy, but the spirit of it is worth remembrance: Wikimedia is bound under a certain charter of operations, and even if we can't only consider the state of wikimedia in america, it would be very bad for everybody involved if wikimedia ran afowl of the IRS. Wikimedia is already strapped for cash and begging for donations: We don't need to lose tax-exempt status because we are filling wikimedia servers with garbage, video-game manuals, "how to get a date", and instructions on making bombs and ripping Karaoke CDs. Whether you want to reference the charter or not is of no practical concern to me. But we need to understand the ramifications and restrictions of the charter lest we make too many mistakes. There are many materials that wind up here that--i think--can and should be deleted on sight. What we need to do is explicitly define what these materials are, and maybe we need to be heavy-handed at times to keep our own asses out of the fire. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What restrictions are we talking about that the charter imposes? The IRS might go after the WMF if we host bomb making guides only because that is a common political tactic in America to throw on the IRS and do a hard audit if you are doing something politically incorrect.  That still has nothing to do with wheither it violates the WMF charter or not.  I can't find a single restriction mentioned in the charter that has any impact on what we as a community can or can't do, including the open welcome of such supposed garbage (to you) Wikibooks.  You are not a lawyer, nor are you really interpreting USC 501(c) here.  The legal restrictions simply are not there.  This is more an internal WMF fight over the status of Wikibooks and its relationships with other Wikimedia projects.  If there is a legal ramification to some content, it would very likely violate NPOV and copyright issues as well, which is my point.  --Rob Horning 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The legal issues are only that we should not be lobbying for legislation. That is all. Kellen T 08:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And that violates NPOV principles. Agreed.  --Rob Horning 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming to be a lawyer, nor am I trying to interpret the law. All I can say is what i've seen and read here. Jimbo certainly thought that the charter and the tax-exempt status were worth mentioning in the debate, so I am inclined to believe that there is some weight to that. Again, however, i could care less whether we reference the tax-exempt status on this policy page or not. Remove it if it's misleading or unneeded or whatever. All I care is that all my hardwork on this project doesnt disappear one day because we angered somebody at the WMF or the IRS, or any other group. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think that Jimbo was out of line to even bring that up in the first place. It didn't have a place in the discussion (although he apparently did believe it), and from my perspective he was trying to imply that Wikibooks was established after the charter was written, and that we are somehow violating the "charter" of Wikibooks.  My counter-argument was that Wikibooks contributors have been narrowing the focus of this project for some time, and even the video game guides were being discussed as perhaps going too far, with some guidelines being drawn up that would have removed most of the objectionable content Jimbo wanted removed anyway.  A calm, rational discussion of the issues with easing out of the books with the participants of those Wikibooks helping to decide where the content should go if it was to be removed would have been very much worthwhile.  As it was, and being a participant in one of those video game guides, it was deleted without so much as a VfD, and certainly I didn't get a chance to even suggest an alternate site before it was moved.  The IRS isn't going to get into our internal politics in this situation, nor is it going to be a problem for the WMF either.  And this response really hasn't answered my question either.  Under the most extreme set of circumstances, what kind of content could you possibly envision that would even cause the ire of the IRS?  Perhaps a Wikibook about how to assassinate the President of the USA would get the ire of the Secret Service, who would also bring in the IRS to do a close check on what we do here.  That sort of thing has been dealt with ad nausium anyway, and would be removed by VfD as well.  Blatant political activity?  That would violate NPOV standards.  In short, the IRS will never be worried about Wikibooks because existing policies will always get rid of any content that might even come close to problems with the IRS.  Video Game guides will never be a problem, even if allowed to remain on Wikibooks.  That was my main point!  --Rob Horning 13:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria/Proposal
I have drafted up a full revision of this page on Inclusion criteria/Proposal. The main difference is in approach: the idea is to define what wikibooks' inclusion criteria are, whereas the approach of the current policy is to stress the negative - saying what is excluded rather than what we stand for. I think it is better to be positive about what we are about - hence the proposal.

I have also added an "enforcement" section, which is largely derived from our deletion guidelines - whilst close to what happens in practice now, these are not intended to replicate our current guidelines.

I do not intend this proposal to be static - please feel free to tweak it, whilst keeping to its general spirit. Also, if Rob's proposals to have guidelines on games textbooks and how-to textbooks pass, I would suggest they are referenced here as agreed ways to interpret the rules (and remain as (official) interpretations of policy rather than be policy themselves), Jguk 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Wikisource would help clarify for those wishing to create 'inappropriate' texts.
Much of this seems intended to keep people from misusing Wikibooks as a publishing medium for stuff that does belong in Wikisource, according to my understanding, yet nowhere do I see a link suggesting that location for such material. Would it not help and be appropriate to add such a link? It would both help those looking for such a place to publish works and help prevent inappropriate material from being published here out of a sense of "well, then where CAN I put my oh-so-important online book?" The name "Wikibooks" is rather confusing, and would more appropriately be "Wikitextbooks" and although I am not suggesting a change, I am suggesting that it would greatly help if Wikisource were mentioned early in this page.

For example changing the section below as follows would answer many questions right off: "Wikibooks hosts instructional resources.

As a general rule ... existing class. Note that Wikisource is appropriate for a broader range of texts." [italics just used to indicate suggested addition]

Question: When should I edit an enforced policy page? It suggests using this page instead, and I'm unclear on when to edit vs. use discussion page. In this case an edit would not alter the meaning of the policy so I am guessing would be appropriate, but am not sure.--Fitzhugh 22:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that this paragraph you are refering to is explosively controvercial, in part because it was edited and stated directly by Jimbo himself. I'm not going to rehash the history of that paragraph here, but let's just say that I want to avoid making any changes on this paragraph in particular.  I'm even on record as stating I would like it reverted to what was there about a year ago, but I'm classified as too reactionary in that regard.  I believe that Wikibooks can be more than just textbooks, but that is going to rehash old arguments.  Especially changes to this paragraph, it should be made as a major policy vote for the whole project and widespread announcements.  I'm not kidding here either.
 * As far as editing enforced policy changes, I've done some minor rewording of some policy pages but I've been very careful when doing so. If there is a policy change, that should be voted on and discussed.  Adding links for the sake of advertising should be discouraged, although mentioning Wikisource explicitly in this document I think would be appropriate in the right context.  I'll try to look through here again and see where it might be more appropriate.  --Rob Horning 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What Exactly Is Wikibooks, Anyways?
I always thought that Wikibooks included, for starters, video game guides. I can understand why you cabal have deleted the game guides, IF THEY WERE SUBJECTIVE, WITHOUT VERIFIBILITY.

For example:


 * Video game guides that tell a certain number of mintues to wait until you send in your forces to destroy the enemies base
 * Maybe there is another way to defeat the game.


 * A certain tunnel to go through, to get a powerup, when there is another way to to get the powerup
 * We should explain why this certain tunnel should be used, maybe it will save you time, if it's a clockticking game, for example, or maybe it just less risky, in terms of your gamelifes.

There are should be infinite examples I could cite, but I'm not planning to grow old typing up the four corners of the world. I believe we can extend this policy attitude to the BOOKS THAT YOU GUYS ARE DELETEING.100110100 of Wikipedia70.74.35.252 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wikibooks includes books based on Wikipedia articles"
I want to remove this section, or at least trim it significantly. This section of the policy is essentially instructions for forking wikipedia articles, not part of a definition of what wikibooks is. I also feel that it's obvious that many of our books are about subjects for which there is already a wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not the only source for new books, and I would not even consider it to be a particularly good source at that. The section "Wikibooks is not a mirror..." could be expanded to say that wikibooks should not contain verbatim copies of wikipedia articles, if people feel that this is a matter that is worth being mentioned explicitly. --Whiteknight (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Any policy line that starts with "note that" should be rewritten without prejudice :). We do have a handy tool available now for copying articles for inclusion in books, of course, but the current wording does seem to suggest that we are to host "Wikipedian overflows", rather than harvesting what we want from wikipedia for book-writing purposes.
 * I disagree on WP not being a good source though. A lot of the articles there make a good basis for a book or chapter, and they're GFDL! -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, i'll cede the point that wikipedia might make a decent source of material, but we really want to stress the fact that we are not wikipedia and that we are not just an overflow for long wikipedia pages. The average wikipedia article is simply not in a format that is suitable for becoming a textbook, although some wikipedia pages are suitable to become a page in a larger textbook. Either way, we don't need a "how to fork wikipedia content" section in a policy that describes what wikibooks is, it does put too much focus where focus does not belong. --Whiteknight (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done I've gone ahead and made this change, because nobody has contested it. I dont think this changes the meaning of the policy at all. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"What Wikibooks Includes"
This section is terribly ambiguous and possibly self-contradictory. I will post the text of this section here, in it's entirety:
 * Wikibooks hosts educational resources. As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not acceptable because of the list of exclusions in this policy. This is for textbooks. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class.

The first line, "Wikibooks hosts educational resources" is terribly ambiguous and not even correct. We do not host "educational resources" in general, most such resources are better suited for wikiversity then Wikibooks. This also contradicts a later line, "this is for textbooks", which is a little confusing in and of itself. I would like to see this section rewritten as follows:
 * Wikibooks is for textbooks, instructional guides, and manuals. These materials can be used as an accompanying guide to an existing class, a Wikiversity course, or as a tool for self-learning. As a general rule, most non-fiction books are not suitable for inclusion at Wikibooks.

What do people think of this change? --Whiteknight (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Wikibooks is for textbooks used in a traditional classroom, an accredited or respected institution, a home-school environment, as part of a Wikiversity course or for self-learning. As a general rule, most non-fiction books are not suitable for inclusion. --dark lama  20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I only want to add the terms "instructional guides and manuals" to the proposal to stem concerns over the non-traditional definition of "textbook" that we tried to employ in the unstable branch of the policy. A lot of the books that we have here really just aren't "textbooks", and trying to broadly redefine the word to mean what we want will be more difficult and confusing then simply saying "textbooks, instructional guides, and manuals". --Whiteknight (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, a lot of books are textbooks and I see no need to add those two terms. I don't know of any instructional guides or manuals that are hosted on Wikibooks. What about, to borrow from your next concern, Wikibooks is for textbooks and annotated texts. These materials can be used in a traditional classroom, an accredited or respected institution, a home-school environment, as part of a Wikiversity course or for self-learning. As a general rule, most non-fiction books are not suitable for inclusion. --dark lama  20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The software books are really instructional guides. The problem here, as usual, is the definition of "textbook". I believe a textbook can be:


 * 1) A classic textbook for secondary school studies. These are what people often imagine to be "true textbooks".
 * 2) A mainstream textbook for a university/college course ("Fundamental University Mathematics").
 * 3) A supplementary text, in the style of a textbook, for university modules ("A Guide to Mollusca"). These are what university students call "textbooks".
 * 4) A supplementary text for school use (eg: "A history of slavery in the USA").
 * 5) A guide for a practical course ("Repairing 1960's sports cars")
 * 6) A supplementary text for a practical course ("Making Chippendale Chairs").
 * 7) A guide to textbooks and guides or a guide for courses ("French Assistant's Guide").

Ultimately a textbook is simply a book that can be used in a course of study. I think we should simply accept any fact book that does not breach this excessively: "A description of my back yard" or "My Indian Holiday" would be disqualified but if Bill Clinton wrote "Sex in the White House" it would be a supplementary text for late twentieth century studies.

My suggestion is to say in "What Wikibooks includes":

Wikibooks includes any book that can be used in a course of study.

RobinH 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see how that really differs from the statement "Wikibooks contains textbooks, instructional guides, and manuals". At least that definition makes it clear that wikibooks isn't just for textbooks (even if your alternate definition implies the same). --Whiteknight (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. I am with you on the need to keep Wikibooks broad. I think User:Darklama is going in a desirable direction in [[Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstable.  I have butchered this to make it broad yet with enough detail to provide guidance for someone who may be wondering whether their contribution is suitable. The essential qualities of a Wikibook should be mostly about the way it is written rather than its content. RobinH 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I've merged together the ideas from RobinH and Darklama, and rewritten this section. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikibooks includes annotated texts"
This section is another one that I feel doesnt belong here, at least not as it is now. We already have a policy Annotated texts, and I dont think we need to duplicate that material here. I would like to delete most of the information in this section, except for the following:
 * Although we do not permit verbatim copies of pre-existing works, we do permit annotated texts, which are a kind of text that includes an original text within it and serves as a guide to reading or studying that text.
 * Annotated editions of previously published source texts may only be written if use of the source text does not constitute a copyright infringement.

The rest of this section really has more to do with enforcement or other information that has nothing to do with this policy. The rest of the relevant information is already located at the annotated texts policy page. --Whiteknight (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done I've been bold and performed this change. I've also made mention of Wikisource as being another acceptable location for annotated texts. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikibooks is not a general repository for nonfiction works"
I would like to either remove this passage from the "What Wikibooks is Not" section, or else modify it substantially. The fact that wikibooks is not a general repository for all non-fiction books has already been mentioned in the section "What Wikibooks Includes", and does not need to be repeated. The current text of this section is as follows:


 * All works here must conform to Wikimedia-wide policy of NPOV, no original research, etc. As such, the vast majority of books which you would find on the nonfiction shelves of a book store are not appropriate for Wikibooks.

I would like to delete this section, and merge the contents of it into the "Wikibooks is not a Soapbox" section (to cover the issue of NPOV), and merge the remainder into the "Wikibooks is not a place to publish original works" section (to cover the NOR requirement). Doing this will leave the meaning of the document in tact, but will make it more readable and less redundant. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Because all this information is already duplicated, and it's removal doesnt change the policy whatsoever, I have gone ahead and made this change. I didn't merge any of the sections, because the existing sections were better written then the stuff I deleted. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)