Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Unstable/not

Wikibooks doesn't complement Wikimedia
Wikibooks is a part of Wikimedia it does not complement it, Wikimedia is a project under constant evolution without a specific goal or concrete objective so no one single part of it may complete it.

part - A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole.

complement - Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection.

--Panic 18:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Wikibooks is a part of Wikimedia, it helps to complete and bring Wikimedia to perfection. Thus it is both a part and a complement of Wikimedia. Rather confusing, but hope this helps! :) --Iamunknown 05:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree that wikibooks is a component part of wikimedia, and not a complement to it. Wikibooks does, however, complement the other wikimedia projects. For instance wikibooks complements wikipedia and wikiversity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A part belongs to the hole, a complement may not be part of the hole, but help the "fulfillment" of the goal. "The METRO/SUBWAY complements the BUS routes." --Panic 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From "not paper"
What does "The authors of a textbook do not worry about an event occurring tomorrow that makes all the large, expensive paper copies outdated, as the textbook will change as well." mean? -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My own interpretation of the text is that printed textbooks sometimes refer to things that may change shortly, such as some new theory that may effect how a subject is understood and effect the accuracy of the text. Because Wikibooks is not limited to paper where such speculation may be needed, textbooks here can be updated to reflect changes as the changes happen rather then trying to guess what will happen and trying to prepare for it prematurely. Attempting to do so is difficult anyways to do beforehand because what may happen can radically change from day to day. Its about making clear to write about what people know to be true today rather then what may be true tomorrow. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... the "not paper" does seem important to remind people that Wikibooks can do stuff that normal books can't do. However; it feels like a "wikibook plug" to me, and probabably should be in a different section. Maybe in a how to write a wikibook section or something similar. It contributes little to this policy page IMO. --Dragontamer 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's important: we don't want people to be writing traditional-style textbooks at the expense of losing some great features that wiki has to offer. The sentence that Johnny brings up, while poorly worded, goes to mean that wiki is a continuous process, not a linear process like tradtional textbook authoring (write, edit, revise, format, publish, etc). If the world changes tomorrow, wiki can update immediately, if needed. If a traditional textbook is being edited or revised, and the world changes, the whole project needs to get scraped. In short, wiki isn't constrained by timelines, as paper books are. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)