Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Unstable/Archive

Unstable version created
I sometimes prefer DocumentMode to ThreadMode, so I created this unstable version of the WB:WIW policy that anyone can edit. This is because the WB:WIW policy is enforced; we cannot make drastic changes there unless we have community consensus, but we can make drastic changes here.

Want to propose a change? See something wrong? Be bold and edit the document. I chose to call it "unstable" to indicate the difference between this page and the policy. Eventually we will decide whether we want to merge any changes back to the policy. --Kernigh 03:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish this had been done with the game guide policy change first, and yes, I do like what you've done here. This page (WB:WIW) is the most often quoted page for the VfD discussions and unfortunately does need to read more like a constitution, hence the many sections and going into depth where common sense really should prevail.  And unfortunately this had to be expanded because there are objections and real-world experience that requires us to be very explicit to some new users and to Wikipedia deletionists who want to move Wikipedia content here to this project.  --Rob Horning 16:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Inclusion criteria/Proposal
I have made a proposal for an alternative text for WB:WIW on Wikibooks:Inclusion_criteria/Proposal, which takes a fundamentally different (and more positive) approach to the current wording and the wording in this unstable version. I would very much welcome comments on that text, with a view towards making this live in the next few weeks. Kind regards, Jguk 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing Sections
There are a number of specific clauses and caveats from the original WB:WIW that are missing from this rewrite, that (i think) really must be included in some way or another. For instance, the NPOV clause, the Soapbox clause, the Original Research clause (although this is touched on under the "invented" restriction, but i dont think that covers as much ground). I appreciate that much of the material is better then it was (more positive, definately). but we can't leave out important rules like that. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This proposal is not intended to replace WB:NPOV, or indeed to cover similar topics (although they are both content-related ideas). To deal with your point, I suggest adding a "see also" or "related policies" section at the end to refer to it. (We also have other content-related policies, eg no copyvios, that could also be linked to in this way.)


 * A diatribe is not a textbook - so I don't think we need a separate soapbox clause to deal with the mischief (also a diatribe is likely to conflict with the separate WB:NPOV policy).


 * The "invented" restriction is meant to cut out original research. Maybe it could be tweaked to better reflect this, Jguk 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made this amendment in the light of your comments, Jguk 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the admendments that you have made here, although I still think that the Soapbox clause needs to be stated directly. Don't forget that there are certainly courses taught at seminaries that preach about the benefits of one religion or another. A textbook on a religion is acceptable, but we need to point out that a "why you should learn to love my god/goddess/flying spaghetti monster" is unacceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The current "soapbox clause" in WB:WIW bars propaganda, advocacy, personal essays, advertising and self promotion. Of that, propaganda and advocacy are, to my mind, already blocked by WB:NPOV. (I note that the wording of WB:WIW associates advocacy with propaganda and so needs to be interpreted in that sense - otherwise we'd ban almost everything (having a book on learning French by itself advocates that French is a worthy subject to study).)


 * This leaves personal essays (which aren't textbooks, so fail that criterion), advertising (explicitly blocked by 1.3(e) of the proposal) and self promotion (the textbook and/or advertisiing criteria are likely to block this).


 * As all the parts of the current "soapbox clause" are blocked by other provisions, I do not see a need to be explicit about it in this policy, although I do think that perhaps a separate interpretation page might be a good idea (it could include Rob Horning's suggested guidance on how-to books and games books as well). By this I mean - keep policies short and simple, although allow official guidance on how to apply it to certain circumstances as well.


 * Incidentally, I don't see any problem with a book that would help people develop their religious and spiritual beliefs. We have, as one of our larger and better books, the Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book. To my mind that sort of book is entirely within our remit - and so would textbooks on how to be a good Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Shi'ite, Sunni, Jew, or whatever. Religious proselytising should be banned from Wikibooks - but to my mind already NPOV captures that, Jguk 16:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Objection to Heavy Mention of Textbook-only for Wikibooks
I've argued this point at several places, including the Staff Lounge and the WB:WIW talk page.

The main point was that for some time Wikibooks had a clause "As a general rule, any book you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop is acceptable."

Jimbo, without any commentary or input from the user community, changed this clause and caused a major debate over the future of Wikibooks. In addition, dispite statements by Jimbo that this was a community driven process, some individuals with admin privileges have been pushing as if Wikibooks was only for textbooks, and even invented a fiction that Wikibooks had always been just textbooks.

Going back to the original rule that was stated above, I really do believe that most reasonable, citable, and conforming to NPOV standards, GFDL, and other exclusions non-fiction material could be added to Wikibooks, as long as it is going to be a book. Not a textbook, but simply a publishable book in some future form. Wikibooks is about writing larger content that would not be appropriate for Wikipedia primarily due to length and in-depth focus of the material.

With all of the comments in this inclusion criteria, I think I could imagine expanding a Wikipedia article on Wikibooks that wouldn't necessarily fit with a traditional view of what is a textbook. In addition, the very definition of a textbook is missing here, and if this is going to be used as a policy guide to say that one particular group of text is acceptable and another is not, an arbitrary "this is not a textbook" is simply tyranny and very subjective. And as attested by the fact that huge swaths of content have been removed from Wikibooks in the past few months, this is also a very significant policy change, not merely a tweaking of existing policies.

I'm not saying that this viewpoint that Wikibooks should only be for textbooks is a bad idea by itself, but it is a major change in direction for the project and ignoring the efforts of many individuals in the past. I'm also saying that by codifying that Wikibooks is only for textbooks, as this policy page does, it sets a very different tone for participation in Wikibooks. This inclusion criteria pushes that textbook-only attitude much more than has been present in the previous policy.

I am noting that this is still a controversial element, and something that should not be ignored. And that any future Wikibookians should be made aware that Wikibooks wasn't always this anal about sticking with a strictly accredited college course-specific textbook as the comparitor to content on this website. --Rob Horning 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As an analogy, Wikipedia is strictly for the creation of encyclopedia articals that are actually fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This does not mean that many people have not expended their energy at that project to create materials that were not suitable, and therefore had their hard work removed. I agree with you in spirit: I don't think it's a good idea to limit wikibooks to simply textbooks for accredited or respected institutions. However, I am highly disinclined to disobey a direct order from Jimbo, regardless of whether or not his order was the result of a democratic process, or a community concensus. I would like it if wikibooks followed the old guidelines that you are talking about, however I will not fight it if we must follow these "new" guidelines. And maybe I am not getting as worked up about this issue because I spend most of my time working on projects that strictly are textbooks. If Jimbo came in here, and with a wave of his hand declared wikibooks was not for science and engineering topics, maybe I would throw a fit of my own. At any rate, as far as i am capable, I empathize, but I cannot in good conscience work to promote a policy change (or perhaps a policy "revert") that could possibly bring bad to our project. Change Jimbo's mind on this, and I will throw my full support behind it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I could quote Jimbo here where he says that he is not changing policy, but that would be a futile effort. I think on this issue it would be better to go back to the hows and whys of what started Wikibooks in the first place, and I would admit that textbooks were a major focus of the discussions.  The problem I see is that some individuals acting as administrators are violating at least the spirit of Deletion policy that strongly encouraging concensus with the community before content is deleted.  To quote some points that seem to be violated right now:
 * As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion if there are a number of comments in favour of keeping. Let someone else do it.
 * Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of other Wikibooks participants.
 * When in doubt, don't delete.
 * Instead, content is being deleted in a wonton fashion without regards to objections by users. This is flat out wrong and has changed the character of Wikibooks.  I see this inclusion criteria to be used as a tool to do further damage to Wikibooks, and a reason why I am raising my voice concerning the points expressed here, particularly in regards to this policy discussion on this page.  Or most importantly a part of the deletion policy that is also forgotten:  "Be friendly! Everyone was new once."  Can we get that sort of spirit into this inclusion criteria?
 * In addition, I find that the "new" guidelines are incredibly ambiguous that have been espoused by Jimbo, and I have yet to see a reasonable definition of a textbook that can be used as rationale for deleting Wikibooks content.  Saying something is "not a textbook" as the justification for deletion is so subjective that I don't know where to begin.  But I also don't want to get into wheel warring with other admins if they start to remove content of that nature.  Perhaps maybe I should.
 * BTW, you might want to read w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to see why people are adding the kinds of content, including video game walkthroughs, onto Wikibooks. Apparently Wikipedia thinks they belong here as a matter of policy.  I'm really surprised that Jimbo hasn't changed this page (although I think he may be too timid to be that bold on Wikipedia).  --Rob Horning 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made this amendment to that Wikipedia policy, together with commenting on the talk page. We'll have to see if it holds, or if it generates further discussion.

In response to Rob (mostly his initial comments), I'd like to say that I agree that everything that meets the "accredited instution" metric is suitable for Wikibooks. My version of wording this metric is as follows:


 * A textbook is....


 * a is a book which is actually usable in an existing class.


 * That class may be at school, college, university, a professional training centre or an adult education centre. We would expect the subject to be taught in a number of learning institutions, one in the whole world is not enough

However, I do not believe that Wikibooks' content should be restricted just to content that meets that metric. That is why I added the additional bit saying that our content includes:


 * ...book[s] written in a similar style to books usable in existing classes and which is about a subject worthy of study


 * Some topics worthy of study are not taught in formal classes. However, it is still possible to have an instructional textbook about them.

It would be useful if Rob could indicate whether he agrees with this formulation, and if he does not, how he would formulate a definition of what this inclusion criterion should be.

I would also like to add that I believe it is liberating and less restrictive to not attempt to define "textbook". We all have a general idea of what one is. Any definition is likely to restrict this, and to reduce our flexibility, and I don't really think it would be useful to try to come up with a definition, Jguk 20:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate policy
From WB:WIW: "Since the word textbook is somewhat open to interpretation, this document exists to help clarify which types of content are acceptable for Wikibooks" That aside, I think we are much better off defining what a Wikibook is, rather than defining textbook in a way that fits the scope of this project. The latter is only prone to lead us astray in semantics if we clash against a colloquial understanding of "textbook".

Defining "Wikibook" will keep us focused on the specific purpose of this project alongside its sister projects and force our arguments to center on what type of material is fitting for inclusion. I think we should rather use the word "textbook" in WB:WIW as an explanation, not a definition. But, either way, we already have a definition of what wikibooks is. --Swift 02:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, I think the difference here is unnecessary. If we say "wikibooks is for the creation of open-content electronic textbooks", that statement alone challenges the normal definition of a what a textbook is to make the difference between normal textbooks and our textbooks obvious. However, if people want to change the word, that's find with me too, I think of it as a non-issue. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A non-issue, yes. But in the sense that is a question, not so much of substance, but of semantics ... which becomes an issue in definitions.
 * But as I said; either way, the definition already exists on WB:WIW. --Swift 05:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I don't think this is duplicate material. WB:WIW states that wikibooks is for "textbooks", but never goes on to define specifically what that word means. WB:WIW does, however, describe a bunch of things that can be here, and a bunch of things that cannot, but the word "textbook" remains unambiguous. If people would like to reject this page and instead expand the explanations on WB:WIW, that would be acceptable too. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 11:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * but never goes on to define specifically what that word means. Exactly. And this proposal doesn't define it either but, just as WB:WIW, only lists what-it-is-and-isn't. Therefore, I see it a duplicate.
 * I think we should, if only for simplicity's sake, rather make WIW more clear and the one stop for understanding what a wikibook is. --Swift 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I can understand your reasoning for that. I say that we do a few things:
 * use this proposal page as a scratch pad to gather our ideas
 * Come up with consensus on this proposal
 * Merge the text of this page into WB:WIW
 * That way we don't need to work on rewording WB:WIW directly (which I'm sure will ruffle a few feathers), and we can still work towards clarity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. I'm not sure, though, that we can merge any really good ideas with WIW without ruffling feathers... Brainstorming and trying out some approaches for size would be good. Do you want to wait till some specific week to properly involve the community, or might it be better to start now in paralell and advertise it in the Lounge just to get some ideas going (as this will probably take much longer than a week!). --Swift 03:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reasonably certain that this proposal had been advertised in staff lounge. If you would like to advertise it again, that would be fine by me. I think it would be very good for the community to get this proposal settled once and for all, regardless of whether the final policy resides here or on WIW. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, it was announced there when I started it... if there's nothing more to add to it, maybe we could propose a merger with WIW, and get it done.
 * I had hoped to figure out what's to be done on both the video-game guides and the new batch of religious books first though. I'm pretty sure the former is pretty much a moot discussion (kind of a Jimbo fait d'accompli), the religion texts need some more careful scrutiny, because it requires some pondering on the meaning of NPOV. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unfortunately there is never a moment when there is only one issue to be resolved around here. It seems like everytime we start a new project, 10 more demand our attention. The videogame guides I don't see as a pressing problem, I have been taking a Laissez-faire approach to that issue, because it seems that many of the guides are migrating away from here of their own volition. The religion texts I am also inclined to view with lieniency because it is my experiance that the people who most want to talk about religion are the people least capable of writing with perfect NPOV. Just because it isnt perfect doesnt mean it can't improve, and I am inclined to post warnings, but let those texts improve. That said, a precise definition of "textbook" here could settle both those issues. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Merged
Wikibooks:Textbook and Wikibooks:Inclusion_criteria have now both been merged into this proposed policy as a result of my query on the staff lounge. This should make it easier for the community to work together to update this policy, rather then dividing efforts. --dark lama  16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Further edits
I've made some amendments, which I hope will be seen as improvements. I do think this unstable version is much better than the original - I hope it can go live in the not too distant future. Jguk 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some changes were improvements and some things weren't. I think your changes removed some clarity and facts:
 * Even though dictionaries, thesaurus, books of quotations, etc. are books that may be useful for learning, they don't belong here.
 * Wikibooks isn't the place to upload books and works of literature, they can only be used as part of annotated texts.

I'll try to make some improvements of my own. --dark lama  23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ownership" section
I understand the desire to include a section on "Ownership", but I dont think this is the correct place to do it, and I will vote against this new version so long as that section remains in this text. WIW is supposed to be a note about what wikibooks is, and what kinds of content are appropriate. This is not the place to start discussing behavioral issues. If we want to have a large, over-arching behavior policy "Wikibooks:How to act at wikibooks", or something, we can have that, but this isnt the place to discuss behavior. I won't remove that section myself, but I don't think it should be here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to make it a behavior police by having it here, so it may need some rework, rather to address who owns contributed contents. --dark lama  01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A thought about ownership here, and something missing from the section in this version of the policy: People who add content to Wikibooks really do own copyright over everything that they add.  Ownership in this sense is entirely correct that people do "own" the words that they write, and they are free to reuse and copy that content which they used in any way they want to.  In fact, they "own" it and can even sell it for a profit under a propritary copyright license (or no license at all).  By contributing to Wikibooks the only stipulation is that you have "granted" a license to that content under the terms of the GFDL.  I know this is a technical distinction, but it is something that is important never the less.
 * Still, there is a tendancy for people to become very attached to something they have worked hard and long on, and to then see it get modified, edited, or even deleted to then get very upset over those who do that modification. This is a natural response, even if modifying the content is explicitly granted under the GFDL.  There is also an unwritten rule (at least until this policy becomes official) that by adding the content to Wikibooks that you are allowing the content "to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" by other people.
 * In software engineering terms, this is akin to what is called "egoless programming", and is a radical concept in terms of collaborative authorship. While most of you who are reading this are likely to be familiar with this general idea, it is important to remember how much of a change this is over traditional forms of authorship.  You do "own" the words, but you don't really have control over how they will be manipulated and changed.  Now on how to explain that more clearly..... ---Rob Horning 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue of becoming attached to work contributed to a book and not wishing for it to be be edited without mercy and issue of wanting to control the contents of the book are what I'm trying to address, without resorting to addressing specific behaviors and to make clear the distinction between traditional forms of authorship and what is used here. For now I've combined the Ownership and Censorship sections since I think they deal with a similar issue, but I agree need to find a clearer way to explain it. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

General Opinions about this policy
I would like to air a few opinions of mine here, as this seems to be the most active policy discussion, and simultaneously the policy discussion that has the potential to have one of the biggest affects on our project for some time to come. At stake, essentially, is our ability to formally define what the wikibooks project is all about, something that has only been poorly defined (or completely undefined) in the past. There are alot of points in this policy that have always been policy, but have been similarly ill-defined. Some of these concepts, such as "No Original Research" or "Neutral Point of View" are central to the Wikimedia way of doing business and will not be changed/removed, but which are open to some reinterpretation.

On an auxiliary note, I'm of the opinion that we would benefit from having more policy documents that are all shorter and more precise then we are having a few monolithic policy documents. It would be better, I think, to have this policy lay down the most basic and broad rules for our site, and refer to other, smaller policy documents to clarify the details. For instance, this policy could say "Wikibooks is for textbooks", and then point a link to Textbooks to fill in the details. Of course, I'm not going to vote against this policy because of a nitpick in the document's structure, but it is something that i would like people to put some attention into. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Enforce
I propose we move the current text of this proposal to policy, in lieu of the current text at WB:WIW. There are a number of changes, clarifications, and simplifications in this version, and I think they will be a benefit to this community to have them. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support – I support moving of the [ current] text of this proposal to being an official policy. There are many changes that clarify what is current practise, while trying to not draw a line too much, which I think will make it useful to the community for quite some time. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support --- Ah, who am I kidding. A couple of minor issues here and there, but I'd much rather have this in place of the current WB:WIW, even with those issues. --Dragontamer 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to re-start &mdash; I realise that my recent edits have significantly changed the policy, though I hope that they have neither changed the original intent nor the current scope of Wikibooks. On the contrary, I hope that they have more precisely defined what is appropriate at Wikibooks, so as to provide helpful interpretive tools with which to eliminate confusion. Put another way, I do not intend to make last-minute behind-the-scenes changes while everyone is away for the holidays. I therefore move for this current discussion process to end with no decision made, and a new movement to enforcement be made when people (including me) work out their issues with my recent additions. Cheers, Iamunknown 06:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose --- While I like the direction this is going, I think there are some important but missing sections that the older policy still covers. See discussion below for specifics.  --Rob Horning 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed. I agree with User:Iamunknown. There have been a number of changes to this policy since this motion was started, and I think there are plenty of changes yet to be made. We can move to enforce this one again latter, when the proposal is more stable. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Motion to discussion and form concensus on each section seperately.
I propose we try to organize this discussion better, by discussion only one section at a time and try to get concensus on that one section before moving on to another section of this prososal. That way any issues with a specific section can be dealt with in turn. --dark lama  05:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Final Word" clause
There was one previously, but it appears to have been removed. I want to reinstitute the "final word" clause into this document. Wikibooks policy and guidelines are fragmented, as in it is distributed among multiple documents. It is very possible for one policy to disagree with another policy. Considering the amount of change that has happened in terms of policy recently, and considering the massive age disparities between some of our newest and some of our oldest policy documents, I think it's important that we have something that is the "final word", that is something that trumps any other document in the event of a contradiction. I propose therefore the addition of the following text (barring revision) to the "Enforcement" section of this policy:
 * Any clause in a policy or guideline on the English Wikibooks that contradicts this policy is null and void.

I think this is an important addition. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Best to change it to Any policy or guideline on the English Wikibooks, approved before this one, that contradicts it will be null and void on the conflicting point(s) and should be marked for revision., since we rarely (I can't remember once) did vote a police clause/point by point. This should probably be added not only to this policy but to any policy we adopt/change in the future, this should cover all bases. --Panic 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think we need to specify only policies that are approved beforehand. We could very easily approve a new policy that contradicts this one, and we still need some kind of final authority when a contradiction occurs. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So... The changes I propose to the phrase clearly state that only the points in conflict will be void (as in the ones that should be fallowed are on the present policy), that's basically the same as in you proposal, the change also states priority, the last approved changes/policy will have an higher priority. (the last text discussed and approved might if conflicts arise be taken as the final word of the community, it goes even further proposing for a new discussion on that specific problematic point, I can't see how more complete it can be made.) --Panic 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION MOVED TO Staff lounge as proposal named "Final Word" clause (proposal) --Panic 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks community
The wikibooks community (our members, our policies/guidelines, and our methods) are defined by our mission to produce open-content textbooks. Every rule, every guideline, every page and every process should be examined by asking "how does this help us to create textbooks?" If something doesnt help towards the mission (and I would allow for things that help indirectly) it should be considered in violation of this policy. I think that such a mention should be included here: that all pages, not just textbook content, must satisfy the requirements of this content. We may also want to include some specifications here about the kinds of acceptable meta content (talk/discussion pages, a certain level of bureaucracy, and the fact that wikibooks is not a general-purpose discussion forum). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added this text: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks%3AWhat_is_Wikibooks%2FUnstable&diff=735419&oldid=735417
 * We can remove this if people don't want it, or we can rewrite it if we need to. I do think it's an important point to make though, and I think this is the best place to make it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)