Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Archive 3

"Wikibooks is not an encyclopaedia"
There are a few things I would like to change about this section. I will itemize them below and we can discuss them on a per-item basis: What do people think of these changes? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I would like to remove instructional text about the use of interwiki links, and the cautions about copy+paste transwikis. While these are important issues, they are more matters of enforcement, and not issues of what wikibooks "is". The text I am referring to is:
 * To reference encyclopaedia articles use interwiki links. Internal links here on Wikibooks link to other Wikibooks modules and between chapters of books. If you see a Wikibook with red-coloured internal links ("redlinks") pointing at top-level Wikibooks modules that do not exist, it may have been copied here from Wikipedia, where the links would originally have linked directly to encyclopaedia articles. (In some books such as the Cookbook and the book on Bartending, individual recipes have been transferred here from Wikipedia. Additionally, some books, including many on the how-tos bookshelf, were educational texts written on Wikipedia, before the creation of the Wikibooks project, and transferred here.) You can help Wikibooks become a better place by changing the internal links in such articles into interwiki links that link to Wikipedia articles.
 * 1) In the second point, I would like to remove many of the references to wikipedia, because we want people to write books here, not attempt to write macropedias at wikipedia. The text I want to remove is:
 * Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic. This is sometimes called a Macropedia, and is discouraged because most projects of this nature can be dealt with directly on Wikipedia itself anyway. ... You may also want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject as an alternative to starting a Wikibook, which would allow you to organize and index several encyclopedic topics under one general subject.
 * 1) I would like to make mention that a macropedia, or imported wikipedia articles can be used in the book-making process. That is, that we can import pages from wikipedia in order to start a book, but that the end result should not be a macropedia (even if the intermediate development stages of the book are macropedia-ish). Specifically, I would like to the text of the second point to say:
 * Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic. This is sometimes called a Macropedia. Books generally have a stronger organization that builds knowledge from one module to the next with a suggested chronological order and inter-dependence between book pages. While macropedia's are discouraged, it is common for a developing book to import content from Wikipedia or another source, and organize that material in an encyclopedic manner while it is being developed into a proper book.


 * Done. I feel like the new version is more focused, and it is less like a blatant advertisment for wikipedia. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikibooks is not for developing new Wikimedia projects"
I would like to remove the second paragraph from this section, because it is more of a how-to in creating a new wiki, and not a discussion of what wikibooks is. The text I am referring to is:
 * In addition, you may find it useful to start a wiki outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, which you may be able to use to develop a prototype of your project. You might want to look at Wiki Science:How to start a Wiki, Wikipedia:Comparison of wiki farms or Wiki:WikiFarms to find a place to start your wiki. You might want to start your wiki at Wikicities because Wikicities uses MediaWiki and the GNU Free Documentation License to host their wikis; this is similar to what Wikimedia uses.

I don't feel that this content is helpful in this policy, and If we insist on keeping this around it should be moved to a help page or someplace. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I made this change because it doesnt affect the policy, and it actually makes things more focused and easier to read. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Videgame guides revisited
Based on some of the comments posted at the staff lounge a while back, the general (although not unanimous) opinion of the community appears to be in favor of removing video game walkthroughs. However, several people (myself included) were very clear that scholarly books about videogames (annotated versions, critical analysis, design and engineering guides, etc) should be allowed to stay. With these issues in mind, I would like to add the followint text to this policy:
 * Wikibooks is not for videogame strategy guides and walkthroughs. Walkthroughs and strategy guides for videogames are not acceptable textbooks, and do not belong on Wikibooks. However, other books about videogames, such as scholarly analyses of videogames or guides on the design of videogames, are allowed here.

Also, since there are some fears that the addition of such a passage would cause a frenzy of deletionism, I also will suggest the addition of a limitation passage:
 * Historically, Wikibooks has allowed videogame strategy guides. New videogame guides should be created on another wiki, such as strategywiki. Old game guides are allowed to remain at Wikibooks, although it is encouraged that they be transwikied to a more appropriate location. Videogame guides that are moved to a more appropriate location should not be deleted outright, but instead should be replaced with a redirect to the new location.

This accomplishes two things: I would like to think that this is a compromise that should be generally acceptable to most people. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Finally settles the issue of videogame guides and
 * 2) Preventing the existing videogame guides from being deleted.


 * I disagree with the limitation passage. I think it should read something like:
 * Materials which may not be appropriate for Wikibooks, should only be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy and if transwikied to a more appropriate location, include a temporary soft redirect to the new location.
 * --dark lama  00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine too, all I wanted to do with that second passage is to try and calm down some of the fears that we are going to be mass-deleting the existing books with torches and pitchforks. So long as we go through a normal VfD process for each book, make attempts to properly transwiki them, and provide adequate soft redirects, I think we should be fine. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not censored for Minors"
I would like to reword this passage because it's become obvious that there are some large ambiguities that cause people to make radically-different interpretations of it. The passage, as stands, appears to be self-contradictory. There are two primary goals of this passage: I propose that we rewrite this section to try and keep these two ideas intact, but try to reduce ambiguity:
 * 1) Disclaimer: Wikibooks cannot guarantee that it is properly censored, because all edits to the wiki are live immediately. The sentence "Wikibooks is not censored for the protection of minors" serves as this disclaimer, currently.
 * 2) Censoring policy: Wikibooks is censored by consensus. We are not completely censorship-free, and we do not propose to be. We generally do favor a wide latitude when it comes to freedom of speech, but we have put our foot down about certain topics in the past.
 * Due to the nature of wiki software, wikibooks cannot guarantee that all pages will be completely appropriate for all viewers. However, Wikibooks books and modules are censored by the community over time. Inappropriate material that is found can be removed, or it can be reported to the administrators.

Of course, this is just a first draft, but it should make obvious my intentions for how to fix this problem. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like Due to the nature of wiki software, Wikibooks cannot guarantee that all pages will be completely appropriate for all viewers. and think it would make a good addition to one of Wikibooks' disclaimer pages. I however question whether a disclaimer was the actual intention of this section of the policy, because it seems to me like it would of been put in either the general disclaimer or one of the other disclaimers, if it were its intentions rather then put into this policy. The rest of it I don't really like the wording and was one of the reasons raised for opposing the Unstable branch. I think this should stay as-is without some considerable discussion and agreement by the community, because I think it will effect everyone greatly. --dark lama  17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why i am trying to start a discussion about it here. I disagree, i'm decently certain that the passage in question was intented to be a disclaimer. Otherwise, the passage is self-contradictory because it says both that wikibooks is not censored, and then later is says that wikibooks is censored by consensus. The only way those two statements make sense together is if one is a disclaimer of liability, and the other is a statement of policy. They can't both be one or the other. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I don't think its self-contradictory. I think it can be read as something like "Books aren't censored simply because a child might see it, even if books might be censored in other ways through community consensus." Meaning Wikibooks might have books on subjects that parents or guardians might not considered to be appropriate for their children. --dark lama  22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename in order
The needed question mark is omitted from the page's title. It looks incorrect, and this is a key page. Thoughts? (I can't move the page; too new) --- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've often thought that, actually. If we're not alone, I'll go ahead and move it. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a technical problem with trying to do that. The question mark is part of a query string for passing information from the browser to the server using the GET method and won't be interpreted as part of the title. People trying to access the page by typing in  http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/What_is_Wikibooks?  will be directed to this page instead. You can even use [ ?useskin=chick] to come here plus change what skin will be used for viewing the page. The question mark could be encoded to work around that limitation, but people would have to remember to use the encoded form or always use a link. Being a key page its been this way a long time, and where people expect it to be. I don't see any benefit in doing so, for so little gain. --dark lama  18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How would it be any different than First Aid/What needs to be done?, which seems to work just fine? – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An external link to that page comes out as:
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/First_Aid/What_needs_to_be_done%3F
 * Notice the "%3F" at the end. If you posted a direct link to:
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks?
 * It wouldn't lead to the correct page. This is, of course, a small problem, but better not to introduce small problems in order to correct a slight annoyance. Use instead. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can fix this anyway - how about a rename to "What Wikibooks is all about" or something. - Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know existed. The page now appears with the ? and there is a redirect from that title. Fair enough?  – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Instructional fiction?
Could anyone please explain me this sentence "Most types of books, both fiction and non-fiction, are not allowed on Wikibooks, unless they are instructional." Does it mean that fiction can be permitted too, provided it is instructional? Any examples? Thank you in advance Undine (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of an example, but in principle, yes, instructional fiction is permitted, though narrowly construed. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about instructions on how to react in case Spaghetti Monster Army invades planet Earth? Or instructions defining a woman's place at home, which is based on someone's superstitions and does not exceed Kinder - Kuche - Kirche (this one was in fact written in Lithuanian Wikibooks before I initiated its deletion). Is any of these suitable to Wikibooks? I want to understand this rule very well before writing Lithuanian "What is Wikibooks" page.
 * I would say "no" to those. Instructional fiction is something more like this. In First Aid if I told a story about some situation where I had to do first aid for bleeding, but without proper gloves, so I had to improvise something - so the story serves to illustrate some important point related to First Aid/Protective Precautions. If it's fiction, it can still be as effective as a real episode, and can teach the reader about some topic in a way which they can easily relate to. Actually, I may well incorporate something of that sort later; I think it would be effective. But this is my understanding, and others' may vary. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike. Instructional fiction is using fiction to illustrate some point about a topic being taught. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  03:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some examples of "allowed fiction": William Shakespeare's Works, Creative Writing, The Once and Future King, Atlas Shrugged, Science Fiction Literature, Of Mice and Men, Accelerando Technical Companion, etc., and perhaps The Voynich Manuscript and Indian Mythology.
 * These things are the subject of scholarly study, and students take college classes dedicated to those subjects. Hopefully a wikibook will be helpful to those students.
 * It's not obvious to me how the fairies in William Shakespeare's Works/Comedies/A Midsummer Night's Dream "illustrate some point about a topic being taught" -- do those fairies have a place at Wikibooks? --DavidCary (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As the William Shakespeare's Works book states, it is for Annotated texts. Creative Writing, however, is an excellent example of a book that could include original fiction for instructional purposes. --Swift (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Original/primary research
I've made a few edits to what had been the "Wikibooks is not a place to publish original works" section, two of which I saved before I meant to and which consequently lack complete edit summaries. To explain my changes, the statement "Wikibooks is not a place to publish original works" would seem to be highly inaccurate, so I changed "works" to "ideas", which is closer to the intended meaning. There further appeared to be some grammatical issues in the section, which I set out to fix, and then more statements struck me as problematic. "Defining terms" would only seem to be a problem if you're redefining something which is usually understood differently. I also don't see a particular problem with "coining words" unless, again, it is done in a way that would mislead readers.

I borrowed from Original research the point about reproducibility. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The OR page is still a draft proposal and does not reflect current policy, while the OR section of this policy is current policy. There has been no consensus thus far to allow coined terms to be used for example, so changing that changes current policy which there has been consensus for. Use of words "primary research" in the clause suggests that for the most part secondary research is allowed, because it is not strictly prohibited which your changes could be seen as potentially prohibiting, which again would be a change in policy without consensus. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I wasn't sure whether I was going to save the last edit, but somehow I ended up doing so without meaning to. Aside from other issues, do you see the grammatical problems in the sentence: "Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, et cetera."? I was trying to fix those and ended up doing more. Also, do you see the problem with the section title "Wikibooks is not a place to publish original works"? Most of the books here are original to Wikibooks. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if I see the same potential grammatical problems or not. Do you mean the "Wikibooks is" part for instance? Wikibooks is a proper noun, donating a website, entity name, or name of a place, which does not make it plural so "Wikibooks are" would be incorrect. A comma is probably missing between the words "primary research" and "such as". Am I missing anything else grammatically wrong with that sentence? "Original works" probably originates from Wikipedia, meaning new works with no foundation based on previously published works that are generally accepted as reliable and true. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I understood that Wikibooks is a proper noun and is therefore singular. I'm talking about "publish primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, et cetera", and not just a missing comma. I'm not sure that I can articulate the problems, but the phrasing definitely looks wrong. However, if I tweak it I risk being seen as changing the meaning, so hopefully someone else can help. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I think that everything from "such as" on, all the way to "et cetera", is a list of examples of primary research &mdash; not, BTW, an example of things that qualify as publication of primary research. That is,
 * Wikibooks is not a place to publish (primary research (such as (proposing theories and solutions), (original ideas), (defining terms), (coining words), et cetera)).
 * The sentence, if considered in isolation, might be parsed in other ways, but I think this parse is most consistent with the title of the paragraph, "primary research in any field". Assuming this parse, the most prominent instance of poor parallelism is that "original ideas" is a non-gerund in the middle of a list of gerunds.  So I've fixed that by providing a gerund, hopefully a meaning-neutral one.  I also added the comma that Darklama suggested.


 * A slight variation of the parse would have "such as ... et cetera"  modify "to publish primary research", so that the gerunds are examples of publication of primary research, rather than being examples of primary research.  I think coining words is an example of primary research, but is not an example of publishing primary research.  Hence I decided that there is no failure of parallelism in the use of  "place to publish primary research"  rather than  "place for publishing primary research".  There is also perhaps some clarity of structure in the fact that all and only the elements of the list are gerunds.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The flow still seems awkward, but I think that is somewhat of an improvement. What about the section title? Belteshazzar (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Front end for non-editable open-source books?
Is Wikibooks supposed to act as a front-end for someone's open-source book, which they provide a link to, but don't actually upload here? For example, the book on High School Geometry, has zero content, and is nothing more than a way for CK-12 to let people get to their High School Geometry book.DSYoungEsq (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of bringing in the content of the CK-12 PDFs to Wikibooks. I'm currently working on High School Earth Science. Many books here have PDF versions and the CK-12 books I haven't translated into wiki form are marked as being at 0%. I don't know why you came back here after three years of absence to complain that I'm not working fast enough, with everything else I have on my plate. – Adrignola talk 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on there, simmer down! I wasn't complaining.  I didn't see any indication the book was ever intended to be more than it is now.  After all, it's in nice shape as it is in its PDF form and it's gonna get changed as soon as it gets put up here for editing.  Do you have an estimate of when you will have the content uploaded here in wiki form available for editing?DSYoungEsq (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I hope to complete High School Earth Science within a month (depends how much time I split between administration and content-building).  I can then start on High School Geometry if you are most interested in that.  CK-12 Books lists the ones that have complete PDFs.  The order I work on them is mostly arbitrary, so if you have a preference, please let me know.  I will have to get a handle on using <math ></math> notation for the mathematics ones, though, so progress on them will be slower. – Adrignola talk 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Condensed Classics
Would this be the correct place to discuss a place for condensed versions of classic books in all subject areas? Wikisource has full versions of public domain books, and Wikiquotes adminstrators do not appreciate plain vanilla encyclopedic information to be included in their articles. There doesn't seem to be a place for condensed classics. Some of the classics in the history of science, mathematics, religion and the other humanities could serve as a thread to connect the various existing articles in Wikipedia and as an additional supplemental resource for Wikibooks texts. For example, see currently incomplete versions of Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Principles of geology (1832) Vol.1 under Charles Lyell and Kirby Page's Jesus or Christianity (1929), Josiah Gregg's Commerce of the Prairies, Radio-activity by Ernest Rutherford, Barnaby Rudge by Charles Dickens, Walter Rauschenbusch's Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907), Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy and The Problems of Philosophy or Baruch Spinoza's Ethics. ELApro (discuss • contribs) 09:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that it could only for those works that could be seen as resulting in a textbook material (or could be adapted into that format). Stretching a bit the concept that you are presenting as condensed, I have myself adapted (and intend to adapt more) public domain works into Wikibooks even if they aren't initially in a textbook format. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikia promotion
I am not trying to stir up trouble. I would just like to know what is the Wikibooks community's opinion about the following. In 2006, Jimmy Wales stepped in here to announce that video game manuals would not be appropriate for Wikibooks. Despite some protest, this was apparently adopted as policy. Since then, Wales' own commercial wiki site about simply one game -- the World of Warcraft -- has grown to be higher-ranked (according to Alexa) than all of Wikibooks.org put together. Not to mention that Wikia, Inc. attracts the "Gaming" audience segment as the fourth most important segment to its sites (according to Quantcast). Now, I see that the current "What Wikibooks is not" policy includes two distinct recommendations to displace content from here (Fiction/Literature and Primary research) to Wikia, Inc. sites. Is anyone familiar with the notion of "self-dealing" when it comes to non-profit charity governance? Please discuss your reaction to this evidence. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not here, wrong place. This is the place to discuss policy, and how it came to become policy is only peripherally relevant, and especially delving into the real or imagined motives of those involved. Wikibooks is not a commercial activity and has no consuming interest in "traffic." It aims to provide a place for free textbooks to be hosted, where the concern isn't how much advertisers will pay for the traffic or a site will pay for the book. Wikibooks doesn't have to host everything. The real question here is whether or not the time has come to reconsider the policy about video game guides. One person asking a question is not enough to really go into it, but I'm new at Wikibooks and I'd like to know so that I understand this place better. So, to develop my own understanding, I'll review the policy, how it came to be what it is, as a (hopefully) neutral report, and then perhaps we can look to see if consensus has changed, might be changing, or needs changing. And that's the issue. There is no effective authority here other than the community's consensus, there is no directive from anyone else that we shall or shall not host video game manuals. It is purely up to us. My review is below in collapse, and then my comments continue. I can now say that, for myself, it was well worth looking at this, I can't speak for anyone else. --Abd (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 00:17, 22 April 2006 Original change to policy.
 * 21:19, 22 April 2006 Reverted, moved to Talk.
 * Wikibooks_talk:What_is_Wikibooks/Archive_2 started 21:18, 22 April 2006. There was some claim there that the decision of the Founder was "final," and some displeasure at such a position. Last comment 06:37, 2 May 2006.
 * Wikibooks_talk:What_is_Wikibooks/Archive_2 started 25 May 2006 (UTC), last post 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ruing the disruption that had taken place.
 * Reading_room/Archives/2006/April, started 06:03, 22 April 2006, last post 15:42, 24 April 2006. Some pages were created that seem to have been deleted., however, the second deletion reason said (integrated into WB:WIW already. Which is, of course, this project page. So this referred to the result, not the process. Bad idea to delete old process pages, it makes it obscure what the reasons were behind policy. Important quote.
 * We are interested in creating a complete curriculum for Kindergarten through the University level. The proper question is: is this a textbook for a course taught in some accredited institution? --Jimbo Wales 13:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There were comments disagreeing with this vision of Wikibooks and comments agreeing with it. This is truly the fundamental conflict, I believe.
 * I saw no consensus there.


 * Wikibooks_talk:What_is_Wikibooks started 00:12, 20 June 2007, last post 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC). Very brief discussion, two editors, that seemed to assume a consensus that new video game guides were to be excluded, existing ones might be kept, but simply wanted to make sure that the process was orderly and not destructive. Referred to the discussion above as source for the consensus.
 * 04:16, 28 August 2007 (adding section about videogame guides, as per unopposed discussion on talk page.)
 * Wikibooks_talk:Game_textbook_guidelines (Talk for "obsolete guideline")
 * 02:29, 26 March 2008 Game textbook guidelines marked as obsolete, supplanted by GUIDE, which redirects to this policy page. The redirect was already in existence at this time.


 * My conclusions: there was no consensus on the basic vision behind Wikibooks; there were, as there was with and remains with Wikipedia, two streams, one toward broad inclusion and one toward a much narrower, perhaps more "respectable" approach. As long as there is no basic vision, no settlement of this division, conflict will continue at some level. Fiat from above is one way of settling such a conflict, but the problem is that the Wikimedia Foundation wikis depend on a vast pool of volunteer labor, and the volunteers believe that it is the community that makes decisions, and there is no way that the Foundation board wants to carve up the goose that lays the golden egg. I was unable to determine if there was, in fact, a fiat from the Foundation. Much more recently, in the matter of the "global ban" of a critic of the WMF, there was an appearance of a ban, but, when it came down to brass tacks, it didn't exist. It was completely up to the local wikis.


 * The problem remains as it has long remained: how does this community make decisions? In the end, looking at this history, policy was written by one person based on the presumed agreement of one other person, and both of them seemed to assume that video games were out. There was reference to a discussion where the consensus was supposedly established, and that discussion did not show it, and it's completely unclear that they even read back into the discussion, it was just mentioned, not linked, as having happened "some time back."
 * Now, what I don't know is all the other stuff that happened. However, there is reference to substantial disruption, and when there are divisive battles like this on a wiki, typically one side wins by attrition with the other side remaining disgruntled. Many leave. And so, from "precedent," never having actually been negotiated as a consensus, a policy is established that is sometimes in conflict with other policies, is unclear as a derivation from the basic purpose of the project, and the fundamental issues -- What *Is* Wikibooks? -- are not addressed, they are simply swept under the carpet. Which can get very lumpy. --Abd (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

-


 * So, are video game guides to be allowed? I think that's the wrong question. The right questions are "How do we decide or confirm or interpret the fundamental vision, the organizing purpose, of Wikibooks? How do we make decisions about everything from fundamental policy to the myriad details that are decided from day to day? How do we resolve conflicts in a way that maximizes consensus, which maximizes efficiency, without demolishing efficiency by having to discuss everything to death? Do we just assume that it will happen by itself?"
 * Hint: it won't. If it were that easy, it would have happened on Wikipedia, it would have happened here, already.
 * And, in the meantime, we need to run the wiki. So it will take time, but it may get easier if we start to realize that the problem isn't that "unreasonable user," the problem is us, that we have not yet developed our own, clear, efficient, fair decision-making system that we all -- or at least most of us -- can accept, even when there are difficult questions, and that won't drive people away by presenting them with brick walls of "Tough, that's the way it is. So what if you didn't agree to it, you can't do anything about it, too late. Go start your own wiki." --Abd (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to removing the reference to Academia Wikia. I believe the link to Academia Wikia predates Wikiversity's existence. There is no Wikimedia project for fictional works and Fiction Wikia is the most well known among our users, some even contribute there. StrategyWiki was started by some Wikibooks' contributors because of what Jimbo said and has a close relationship with Wikibooks because of that. As for trying to understand how the video game section came into being. Abd's research is incomplete. There has been a lot more discussion, including on people's user talk page, in the reading room, and at requests for deletion. For a long time people were undecided as to whether to allow video games or not. However the reasons that eventually came to be and for which consensus existed have nothing to do with Jimbo at all. I admit I feel uncomfortable with the exact way in which video games came to be excluded, because to me it feels like a special exemption was made for their exclusion, rather than some general rule would exclude them and other similar works. I recommend new/fresh discussion though, rather than trying to dig old history though like Abd attempted to do.
 * Quick correction: The strategy wiki was not started by Wikibooks contributors and had nothing to do with anything that Jimmy said. It was a project that was initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation Board. --Eekim (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC) struck per removal by Eekim, note by Abd (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The StrategyWiki page about itself would refute that, Eekim. "StrategyWiki was founded in December 2005 by former member Brandon Suit with the idea that the existing strategy guides on the internet could be improved. Three years later, in December 2008, Scott Jacobi officially established Abxy LLC for the purpose of owning and operating StrategyWiki as a community." -- Thekohser (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed one possible solution in the unstable branch that excludes video games in a way that might make more sense because it doesn't target video games specifically. "Wikibooks materials are not solvers They are not intended to provide detailed strategies, solutions, walkthroughs, or answers for specific problems without teaching anything, like how to beat video games. Use StrategyWiki for game strategy guides and walkthroughs." --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Darklama. I want to make it clear that I did the research, collapsed above, for my own understanding of the policy, and if I wanted everyone to "dig through the history," I'd not have collapsed that, and I'd have presented it differently, with a justification for why it was important. I understand that the development of the policy, fully considered, might require a true tome to cover. However, there is a policy issue about policies. They should be developed and documented in such a way as to be able to understand the thinking behind them, or they become arbitrary in appearance, and therefore difficult to understand and apply. The policy against video game guides is very strange, it stands out like a sore thumb. This much is clear: in what I covered, which reflected the discussion here -- this should have been the place for the critical determining discussion. I inferred a basis from one of Jimbo's comments, but that statement itself, the underlying basis, didn't become policy! The importance of this is not about blaming those who came before, it is about recognizing that certain foundational aspects have been neglected, and my concern is about how to fix that. Better late than never; the fundamental issue will continue to cause wasted labor, though it is less of a problem if there is careful attention paid to preserving content -- as was clearly your intention, Darklama --, i.e., by providing interwiki transfer where appropriate, or making sure that authors can get the wikitext so their work isn't tossed in the trash. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm probably one of the oldest Wikibookian that has remained consistently active. I had to check Jomegat since he has also been a extremely constant presence :), anyway I don't remember the discussions regarding video games guides and I certainty did not participate in it, but I can clearly remember that it has been a constant issue, that popped constantly during any deletion of that type of material and I can confirm, without any numbers backing me, that my perception has been that the removal of that type of content has reduced participation in the project in general.
 * Now, I don't support the reversal of the decision but I would admit that it couldn't have been reached by consensus (as Abd has pointed out), but I have to admit that my reasons to oppose against the inclusion of the content would be as good as the ones supporting a reversal. In fact our scope as a project to me seems to be often forgotten. There is our primary goal set by the WMF, to create free content. That is the principal reason I work here. Next comes the different projects focus and to me out focus starts where Wikisource ends, as I have said many times before Wikisource should be the project we should look to in determining our practices and what we are. Wikisource does support video games guides so in practice I don't see any valid reason we shouldn't, except my personal preference, but I'm also able to see that keeping that type of content on, or even better, creating a separate project for them, would benefit the WMF, I would even see Wikibooks as supporting fictional writing as a test bed (Abd, isn't it possible to do that sort of thing in Wikiversiy as part of a course on creative writing ?) if that promoted the WMF objectives and increased donations. Wikia, Inc. and StrategyWiki seem to be for-profit project we shouldn't be shifting users there if we can keep them in a WMF project. In that spirit I would probably support broadening our scope...


 * Strategy wiki is a Wikimedia project and is not a for-profit project. --Eekim (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The StrategyWiki page about itself would refute that, Eekim. "StrategyWiki was founded in December 2005 by former member Brandon Suit with the idea that the existing strategy guides on the internet could be improved. Three years later, in December 2008, Scott Jacobi officially established Abxy LLC for the purpose of owning and operating StrategyWiki as a community." -- Thekohser (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a check at the time I wrote that and couldn't find a definitive statement. From StrategyWiki about page "StrategyWiki was founded in December 2005 by former member Brandon Suit with the idea that the existing strategy guides on the internet could be improved. Three years later, in December 2008, Scott Jacobi officially established Abxy LLC for the purpose of owning and operating StrategyWiki as a community. Our vision is to bring free, collaborative video game strategy guides to the masses."
 * ABXY LLC, 24 Kitzbuhel Rd., Parkton, MD, US
 * LLC can be non-profit but there is no indication of that. Reading http://strategywiki.org/wiki/StrategyWiki:Announcements there seems some profit oriented decisions.
 * It is indeed a Wikimedia project (software) but what I said is that it isn't part of the Wikimedia Foundation. --Panic (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * StrategyWiki and Wikimedia Strategy are two different wikis. – Adrignola talk 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw I disagree with Abd seemingly distaste for the decision process, but I probably share his view on the consistency that it is applied, and our last two major issue under discussion have shown the problem we have respecting each-others. I do think that we should reexamine the decision process, especially in order to update it and make it into a policy, so to avoid unnecessary escalations when the community clearly doesn't back an action. Regarding urgent decisions, we rarely have one, if we do fallow the existing rules and I think being conservative, as the consensus decision process makes us be is beneficial for the project.  --Panic (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I encourage Panic not to jump to conclusions about "distaste." The process was what it was, and I was simply trying to understand it. Yes, I pointed out some problems with it. There will always be problems, and a "process problem" doesn't mean that the conclusion of the process was defective. However, unclear policy can cause massive waste of time, or, on the other hand, loss of participation. If policy is clear and easily accessible, people won't waste time creating content that's going to be deleted, or, if they do, then we can shrug our shoulders. We should still be nice to them! But a clear policy is a clear policy. Guidelines should be written such that people who follow them can expect that their work will stand. There is a prejudice against "instruction creep," but wikis were actually designed to create detailed instruction manuals! The guidelines should be as detailed as necessary to prevent endless repetition of the same discussions. They should not be taken as "law," but as support for efficient participation.
 * In the other direction, if we set a policy excluding material, we will fail to encourage participation by those interested in that material. If the material is truly inappropriate, that loss may be necessary. But if it isn't inappropriate, or if it is marginal, we may be damaging our user base without necessity. Panic, above, expresses the sense that Wikibooks lost participation because of the exclusion of video game manuals. Some of this may have represented users who also worked on other areas of the project. I know that if my favorite content is excluded, I'll tend to toss out the whole effort. Now, if the project were clear from the beginning about what is in scope, I'd have made my choice from the beginning. But when it's dropped down in the middle, rather arbitrarily, based on one particular understanding of the vision of Wikibooks' mission, it can really not sit well. There was reference to serious conflict in what I found. I did not even begin to document that, but I don't wonder at it. There would be people fighting strongly, on both sides, for their own vision of Wikibooks. This is exactly where careful, patient, and documented community decision-making is needed, decision-making that maximizes consensus. I know that when this happens, and the process is clear and inclusive, i.e., one side wasn't just shut down and told to shut up, and it is obvious that everyone was heard and their arguments considered, I am far less likely to resent the result if I end up in the minority. And this is exactly what traditional deliberative process is designed to do, and even more so the twentieth century development of consensus process. Good process preserves the unity of a community even when there are disputes, and it results in better decisions. If people are arguing about A vs B, very often the best answer is C. Poor process divides and fractures and may seem to result in a victory to some, but in the end, more damage has been done than good. Good process takes time and patience. --Abd (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikia gets all the junk that we don't want. And they are drowned in ads! -Arlen22 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do we want to send half our traffic to such low quality sites? -Arlen22 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should start a new thread as I'm lost. I agree that Wikia gets the junk and is based around advertising.  What I don't get is where you see us sending traffic there or elsewhere (low quality or not).  Are you arguing for the inclusion of strategy guides again?  If so this would need more visible discussion at Reading room/Proposals. – Adrignola talk 18:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed
Could I get consensus, please, to restore the edit that was reverted here? Thank you. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Approve of edit by Thekohser, as it is less prescriptive and more inclusive of other alternatives that Google places higher than Wikia alone. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even more approve of generic guidance that there are "other places" where collaborative fiction and freely-licensed fiction is welcomed. Leave it to the content creator to figure out where to go next. Possibly, we could make one last attempt to "retain" them here at Wikibooks by suggesting they contribute to a textbook about "Fiction Writing". -- Thekohser (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good thinking. We should present less of a brick wall, and more of a greased path to better alternatives for users interested in content that won't meet inclusion rules here, as well as actively soliciting participation by these users in places where they could be helpful, and where they might also learn something of value to them. --Abd (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with addressing the existence of one problematic link by introducing a far more problematic one. It might be better to simply not recommend any other specific site at all.  If we want to say anything beyond "we don't allow it", I wonder if we might formulate some more generic suggestion that there are sites elsewhere on the internet for it.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As for my previous post on the above thread, I think we should actively avoid directing users to commercial sites in community approved text, realities outside of our control can out-pace our community approved texts. Especially since there is no benefit to us (community) and as Pi zero states a more generic suggestion will do the job. --Panic (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also uncomfortable with this edit, and do not support it. Thenub314 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with suggesting websites that might accept material that Wikibooks' doesn't accept. I see nothing wrong with a website being commercial in nature either. However I think there is a problem with suggesting websites that use a licensing model that isn't compatible with Wikibooks' licensing model. I think any suggested websites need to use a compatible license. The websites added by Thekohser do not use a compatible license, so I also object to there inclusions. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reason to restrict referrals to sites with the same license. We have no policy promoting our kind of license, and trying to inhibit the user of other forms of licensing, elsewhere. We wouldn't be bringing this material back here. For moving material from Wikibooks, already placed here, yes, that could be a problem, perhaps, it would depend on details. And this points out why it's important to list the licensing situation at each site, and a detailed subpage would cover that, without filling up the policy with stuff that we don't need to know, just to know what the policy is. --Abd (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, Darklama's point is not about promoting our type of license. If we suggest a site it makes sense to suggest a site as similar to us as possible, since the user had already potentially made up their mind to contribute here.  I haven't investigated the licensing models of these other sites, but it is one important aspect of our site, and one that makes sense to consider if your trying to make a friendly suggestion of someplace similar people may contribute their work. Thenub314 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is indeed about suggesting websites as similar to us as possible. I think suggested websites should also provide a means for people to collaborate too. I believe the point of this policy is to not only to deal with common cases of things that Wikibooks does not allow, but also to acknowledge that people will add works that will need a new home because they didn't read this policy and for people that do read policies to be able to make/find good recommendations that will provide an environment as similar as possible to Wikibooks where their works will be accepted. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Darklama makes an excellent point here that most people who encounter this policy (in my experience) because of an RfD, query, or some other suggestion that there work doesn't fit here. With this being said, I can now see it makes Wikibooks a much friendlier place to say "try this other place" as simply opposed to "not on this wiki".  I think, for this reason, I support trying to give a like to an appropriate place when possible. Thenub314 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above). One step at a time. Thekohser made a series of edits, and more of them were improvements than not. Only the last edit was reverted. Part of it was fine, converting the "Use Fiction Wiki" instead into a statement that the alternative might be considered. I've (http://fiction dot wikia dot com/ Fiction Wikia) restored that]. So the question here becomes whether or not to list other alternatives, and Thekohser's suggestion is reasonable, on the face, without having investigated. He listed Discussing the substance here is what we should be about, and "No" doesn't do that. Is there a reason to confine ourselves to listing wikia alone? It is user-friendly to point to alternatives, but, in fact, those could be on a subpage, with listings for each class, and with its own inclusion standards. We don't want to become a pile of links to web sites, for sure, but a few recommendations enjoying consensus should be fine for each category, and if we subpage this, we don't have to debate over what isn't actually a change to policy, but merely to friendly dicta. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Protagonize.com (using a non-commercial Creative Commons license)
 * StoryMash (using copyright)

Censorship
Can the 'for minors' phrase be removed? WB is not censored for the protection of the easily offended either. Or anyone else for that matter. Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 13:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are 3 mentions of "minor" on that section (that does not only cover minors). There is a relevance in the minors distinction because of Wikijunior. We could expect many arguments around improper content otherwise (Think of the children).  --Panic (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The current policy does not include the easily offended wording so removing "for minors" would not help. I believe "for minors" needs to be explicitly stated rather than implied to avoid arguments/debates about the appropriateness of books on specific topics. I'm for expanding the coverage of what Wikibooks is not censored for though as long as each thing is explicitly stated, like the draft proposal does. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  11:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the 'for minors' part in the header does not conflict with the explicit statement of child protection, does it? The child protection part can be stated in the text, but the header itself needs to be broader? Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 12:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The section heading accurately reflects that the whole section is about how Wikibooks isn't censored for the protection of minors, changing the heading would be misleading unless the section is expanded. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a re-word of the entire section. It could be reworded to say that WB is not censored for anyone, including minors. Or something like that. :P IMHO, it is misleading to limit the lack of censorship to protection of minors. WP made that changes long ago btw. Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 10:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Wd930
Why do you think that I'm hosting on Wikibooks, when I'm not?71.217.85.118 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Are computer program-based cookbooks books?
I am wondering: is a cookbook (think O'Reilly's Perl cookbook, but simpler) about how to generate useful plots in gnuplot and python/matplotlib a "book"? or is it something else that lacks a place in wikibooks (that's perfectly fine, I just want to know what is the policy for this kind of book). Thanks in advance for any light on the subject.


 * Yes, there is a place in Wikibooks for a tutorial on generating such plots. It would fit as a section of Python Programming/matplotlib or gnuplot. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition to 'What Wikibooks includes'
"Wikibooks includes both minor and major book-like projects."--Pharos (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Should Wikibooks allow essays and non-neutral POV books?
I think that Wikibooks should allow opinionated books, essays, political commentaries, and the like. I intend to put a formal proposal forward at WB:Reading room/Proposals, but first I want to see if there is any support for this. Comments?  Liam987  09:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-neutral material belongs on Wikiversity. Wikibooks produces neutral work; that's part of the contract understood between its authors and its audience.  From what I understand (it being all before my time), that distinction from Wikibooks is (more or less) why Wikiversity was created in the first place.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly by normal definition a textbook would be expected to be neutral. However, Wikibooks has a number of books that don't fit the tight definition of textbook and some of these are fundamentally "biased". For example, it would be hard to argue using the traditional definitions of neutral point of view that Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book is neutral. I think it is likely that a book titled "The Republican Political Philosophy" would survive here today, despite its bias. The key though is that the title of the book reflects its content. A book called "United States Political Philosophy" that only represented the Republican view wouldn't be acceptable.
 * I do think there is a line that shouldn't be crossed and that is the original research line. A book about something that is a widely accepted subject with a known bias is one thing. Once it becomes an original piece of work with no supporting material available in the "real world" then it is out-of-scope for me. So the "essay" suggestion may be a step too far. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 12:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks aims to help teachers, students, and schools that cannot afford the cost of traditional textbooks by providing free alternatives which are of similar quality, accuracy and reliability. Wikibooks' scope has been relaxed over the years. Some experiments to relax Wikibooks' scope have worked out and others not. What you suggest was tried before and resulted in Wikiversity at first as a subproject and then later on as an entirely separate project when the Wikibooks community rejected the continuation of that experiment within Wikibooks. What you suggest would mean duplicating the scope and mission of Wiiversity now. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, but (almost) no one is at Wikiversity. Also, what Wikiversity is is really not clear from going there or from its description. It appears to be the trash bin of Wikimedia, for projects no one wanted to deal with, but the were too many proponents of to get rid of completely. An "Essay" namespace would fix the problem of identification of what is neutral and what is not. Also, all Wikimedia projects except for Wikipedia have huge shortages of editors, so isn't it better to consolidate things? Also we are Wikibooks, not Wikitextbooks. The idea of free books is a great idea, but limiting that to text books does not make sense. The scope of Wikibooks should be expanded to include many types of book (thought obviously not fiction).  Liam987  17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks was considered the trash bin of Wikimedia prior to Wikiversity, probably because the projects Wikipedians don't want to deal with use to be dumped on Wikibooks prior to Wikiversity. An "Essay" namespace to identify non-neutral works is not much different from how the "Wikiversity" pseudo-namespace was used to identify all the non-neutral, POV, OR, and non-textbook works that use to exist on Wikibooks prior to Wikiversity becoming a separate project. I'm not convinced this would fix any problem, rather I think it would only repeat history.
 * Wikibooks went by the names "Wikimedia Free Textbook Project" and "Wikimedia-Textbooks", and could be found at textbooks.wikipedia.org in the early days prior to getting its own domain name, because the request was for a project to host free textbooks. I don't know the history that lead to Wikibooks instead of Wikitextbooks as the project name, but I can agree the name does not necessarily make sense for its scope.
 * Some Wikimedians have suggested consolidating all the projects into Wikipedia, with the suggestion that Wikibooks be called Wikipedia-Textbooks. However such a consolidation has been opposed by many project communities. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  00:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a travel guide?
Now that we have Wikivoyage, a travel guide is probably not appropriate for Wikibooks.--Netol (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd want to be quite cautious about this, thinking it through with great care. Presumably it would bear on Subject:Tourism.  It does seem plausible that some sorts of such books would merely do the same thing as Wikivoyage, and their contents should therefore be merged into Wikivoyage and removed from Wikibooks (effectively transwiki'd).  But if a book here presents different information than Wikijoyage would, it would seem to have some claim on legitimacy.  Where or how one draws the line, I don't know.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis?
I apologize for what I'm sure is an often addressed question, but I'm confused by the presence on this page of the following two statements: The first is addressed in another discussion on this page, but the addition of the second is confusing. "Analysis" is not original research? In drawing a line between textbooks and encyclopedia articles and seemingly more lax rules on verifiability, it does seem like a greater allowance for OR is created. Also, the fact that textbooks are frequently cited in scholarly works seems to point to the acknowledged presence of some original research. A textbook wouldn't be about a new theory, but authors do opine about new theories or present, for example, new pedagogical strategies. To be clear, I'm not trying to advocate a particular perspective. I'm just trying to get a better feel for the site and its possibilities. Thanks. --Rhododendrites (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "...primary research should be published elsewhere, such as a peer-reviewed journal, or our sister project Wikiversity."
 * 2) "...other books about video games, such as scholarly analysis of video games or..."


 * Just before that first passage you quote, there's an attempt to clarify somewhat. "Examples of things not allowed on Wikibooks include proposing new theories and solutions, presenting original ideas, defining new terms, and coining new words."


 * Those are things that, to me, are really overtly original. I think scholarly analysis is likely okay, unless it's inherently controversial in which case it might be either original or non-neutral, depending on how it's presented.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. So it sounds like I'd be safe going by my fairly traditional (I think) concept of the kind of writing one would expect to find in a textbook. That's what I figured, but seeing the language about OR--and coming from Wikipedia--I had to make sure. --Rhododendrites (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)