Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Unstable/not/wikipedia

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)

Critical section missing, at least as a theme
One thing that is critically missing in this revised policy is something indicating the relationship of Wikibooks to the other Wikimedia projects, and in particular Wikipedia. I will note explicitly What is Wikibooks, that has caused innumerable problems in the past when it has not been followed.

Since almost the beginning of Wikibooks, there was a tendancy of people on Wikipedia using Wikibooks as a place to fork articles because of some editing dispute or some sort or another on Wikpedia, especially as Wikibooks tended to have fewer admins and a generally much more permissive policy on what was acceptable.

The issue of avoiding macropedias on Wikibooks is of particular concern to me, as it seems like they are starting to creep back into Wikibooks again, particularly with Star Trek Starships and a few other semi-recent Wikibooks. Indeed one of the legitimate reasons for killing some of the gaming guides on Wikibooks (generally not stated in the VfD discussions) was that they tended to be merely collections of references or articles to monsters or weapons in each of the games. They really weren't scholarly treatments about the games.

I know there is a section in this version about reference texts, but I don't think that covers the issue well enough nor clear enough to new Wikibooks users. Explicitly stating that macropedias aren't considered acceptable should perhaps be something better defined, particularly given problems that Wikibooks experienced in the past.

Other parts of What is Wikibooks do have some legitimate concerns. I can point to a specific VfD, problematic user, or Wikibooks gone awry that resulted in almost every sentance being written in this section. While much of that has been worked into this new policy, I think we need to be careful that we aren't throwing too much out in the process.

A variation of v:Wikiversity:Approved Wikiversity project proposal might be reasonable to add in here as well. The general philosophy that we as a project don't go stepping on the toes of the other Wikimedia sister projects is a reasonable thing to explain, and as a general policy we should try to avoid having overlaping areas of responsibility. This also gets back to why we need to be very explicit that Wikibooks should not duplicate Wikipedia: Wikipedia does a much better job of being an encyclopedia. So much so (with tough quality standards, reference requirements, and a much much larger group of people participating) that it seems patently absurd that we here on Wikibooks should even try to duplicate efforts on Wikipedia. --Rob Horning 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate it when people say I agree but "I agree". I think this difference needs to be made explicit.  There are some very good books on here & some that may become ones.  However there are both some works that do not seem to me booklike and some stubs that could be developed the wrong way.  Peace to the anti deletionists but it is a reason I query a number of short pages that seem to have little direction.  They are not useful to readers and in not clearly specifying where they are going may mislead in the future -- Herby  talk thyme 13:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the bit about using previously published works could be expanded a little bit to state that in order for duplicate to exist here, it needs to be expanded on, not just copied. I don't believe the issue of using Wikibooks as a dumping ground is strictly done by Wikipedians nor taken just from Wikimedia projects. It was my intent to exclude works duplicate here with no intent of ever being developed further or with the intent of just mirroring another source,


 * A major part of my philosphy in revisions to this policy has been on making it more postive and focusing on ways to explain what Wikibooks is for with the effect of excluding through postive definitions (eg so people can say "This is what Wikibooks is for, this is why this isn't allowed here"). I also believe it would be a lot easier for people to agree on what Wikibooks is for then what it is not for. and what may not be allowed might change with time, while the general aims of Wikibooks is not as likely to do so.


 * I cut down on referring to other projects a lot because I believe that would be better served as a help page for instance or even a textbook, which should be allowed to be expanded on and changed without being part of some policy. I can agree that "A duplication of other Wikimedia projects." from Wikiversity may have a place within this policy and the "Other projects" section revised to reflect this. In fact as soon as I finish this reply, I will work on it.


 * Are there any other concerns? What other things do you believe is missing from this proposal that is currently in WB:WIW? I believe this proposal does a good job of covering what is in WB:WIW in a more positive and helpful way, and explains a lot more. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 14:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that What Wikibooks is not was primarily defining the relationship between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, at least in the beginning with the policy. I understand the need to cut down on some of the words here, and that certainly Wikibooks has become an established project, but something here needs to explicitly cover the use of encyclopedias within Wikibooks.  This shouldn't be a seperate policy, because this is precisely the policy where this relationship is already defined.  I would dare say this is the very purpose of this policy.  That perhaps this section from the older policy could be rewritten to a more positive tone, I would have to agree.  That it should be culled completely from this policy, I strongly disagree.  This is far too important to ignore and as I've said, has been the source of considerable frustration in the past that this is supposed to clear up.  --Rob Horning 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My issue is in how WIW currenly defines that relationship by describing what each project is for. I think that sort of information is better off in a help page or textbook because its going off the subject of what Wikibooks is for and into what other projects are for which has nothing to do with Wikibooks policy, but their own policies. There is already links to the other projects policies on what each is within this policy for them to learn that. On the other hand I already adopted some of "What Wikiversity is not" into the policy because I do think it is short and to the point and does a better job of saying "don't duplicate work from other projects" in a hopefully more positive and helpful light which does deal with our policy and I believe covers more then just Wikipedia. Keep in mind this proposal says "Be more then a collection of articles or list of terms, quotations, facts, images or other information" which also excludes most other Wikimedia project stuff. Have you read the current version? I made some changes a few days ago to try to address your concerns. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember this problem a while ago, and I agree that there should be some sort of "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia" thing written in the policy. It is so obvious, but it is forgotten much. We have similar policies, but with distinct nuances. I don't worry so much about Wikibooks anymore however; as we have developed a sense of what is allowed here and what is not.


 * As for making it explicit... I'm neutral on the subject. On the one hand, there have been instances in the past where Wikipedia users would come here and dump whatever didn't fit Wikipedia's policy. And there are always going to be macropedias attempted here on Wikibooks. On the other hand, maybe they'd read the policy if we focused on making it shorter and easier to read, instead of adding in so much redundancy. --Dragontamer 17:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comment that maybe more people would read the policy if it focused on being easier to read. My main issue with the current WIW is it seems to focus on what Wikibooks isn't too much, which doesn't help new users understand what Wikibooks is for. Thats why I think this one is better. I did as I said I was going to do and made some changes. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicating some items from the older version
I added some sections regarding the relationship between Wikibooks, Wikipedia, and Wiktionary. These are very common new user mistakes in terms of having somebody create a list of words or write up what is essentially just an encyclopedia article. With some strong examples of what a Wikibook is on the Main Page, this has been cut down considerably from what the typical experience was like in the past, but it still happens.

I tried to keep the generally positive tone of this new version of the policy, but to retain the key ideas.

I also added a new section about essentially original research. There has been some concern that there is no official policy about original research, but in fact what was on the previous "What Wikibooks Is Not" was largely felt to be all of what was necessary for original research policy here, and the policy most often cited in terms of removing original research in the past. This is in fact something we need to be a little more diligent about in terms of trying to cull this sort of content from Wikibooks before it gets out of hand. The wording is mostly copied from the original policy, so I hope it isn't too controvercial to be added here.

Omitting either of these additions really puts a huge hole in this policy, and was something really missing from this current revision. I understand that the purpose was to try and simply a rather unwieldy policy, but experience has shown that many of these issues need to be spelled out very explicitly, particularly for brand-new users to Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do understand that creating lists of words or writing encyclopediac articles can be a very common mistake for new users to make, but I still don't understand why you think this policy is the approperiate place to address these concerns. We have Wikibooks for Wikipedians for example which is meant to address confusion for people who are use to Wikipedia and how things are different here, and we also have various Help:FAQ files that could include this information for example "Q: I can write encyclopedia articles here too right?". I have to admit though what you added is more positive than before. I guess you could say my concern is this providing informative information thats policy rather then proving helpful information for new users and where do we start to draw the line?


 * Your use of "they must be secondary and auxiliary to a main text" has given me the beginings of an idea for more improvements to this policy, which I think can help improve the "Wikibooks complements Wikimedia" section.


 * The omittion of an original research section was intentional there is some attempts to have another policy to address this specifically that are in contradiction with the current WIW's concept of original research and your Academic Research description. The people working on that policy seem to be interested in allowing people to coin new words and definitions so long as they make are clear and people can understand them, and in allowing new ways of doing things. Last I checked though it was not very clear because of disagreements on what should or shouldn't be allowed. For myself, I believe taking the perspective of defining what it takes to not be original research has a far better chance of working while satifing these wishes. "Be verifiable and peer reviewable; that is anyone can verify the material will work every time through repeating it" was the result of some of that perspective and discussing it on the IRC channel. Fiction and novel literatures aren't something your going to be using to learn from but for enjoyment, so why do you think this is needed? I think the two points I think you were trying to make for orginal research can be perhaps be addressed as "Be based on facts that are well established", what do you think? --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have to say that we absolutely must get the original research policy passed before this version is accepted if you absolutely insist that the original research portion of the current policy is to be removed. For now, this is the one and only policy that we have that even addresses this issue.


 * In terms of removing the portion discussing Macropedias, I am going to be a major PITA about this if it is not put into this policy in some substantial form. This is a very, very, very common new user mistake, and not something merely to be relegated to the "FAQ" pages.  The same goes for individuals who want to create encyclopedia articles on Wikibooks, including forking from Wikipedia.  That the wording may be more friendly, yes, I can agree on that point.  But it does need to be in here in some fashion.  This is very much a critical section that absolutely must be addressed by this policy, or perhaps recreating What Wikibooks Is Not if you insist.  The whole point of merging that policy into this policy was to keep to one page everything that generally talked about the same general idea:  What exactly is this crazy thing we are doing?


 * As far as addressing fiction and novel literature, this is again something that has been repeatedly added to Wikibooks and we point explicitly to this policy as justification for removing that sort of content. I thought this was a resolved issue here, but apparently it isn't.  'This is the policy that governs fiction on Wikibooks!  If you want to spin this policy off as a seperate policy, OK, I might go along with that, however it flys in the face of trying to simplify the plethora of policies on Wikibooks as well.  While you may not think currently of fiction as something found on Wikibooks, that hasn't always been the case.  It is very diligent efforts on the part of many administrators to keep that stuff off, and point to this policy as a short hand not to reopen the whole debate over fiction on Wikibooks all over again.  Or if the issue is reopened, then it should be a major policy change instead.


 * One of the key parts of this policy is that it is the accumulated experience and history of Wikibooks, particularly in dealing with marginal issues and codifying concensus that has happened on the VfD pages and the Staff Lounge. My huge concern about the massive culling of content on this page is that you have suddenly lost all of that accumulated experience, and lost the context as to why we do things the way they are done here.  Try to at least understand why I'm adding these sections in here, and make a special effort that any policies that are removed are then subsequently covered elsewhere.  I don't see that happening here at the moment.  As the oldest policy on Wikibooks, dating almost to the very creation of this project, it has accumulated some cruft over time.  But at the same time, don't simply change things just for the sake of changing them.  There are reasons why this policy has been worded the way that it is currently.  --Rob Horning 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rob. The NOR rule is one of the fundamental rules of all WMF projects, and it's something that we do need to specify, either here or someplace else. As a bit of compromise, we could include a small statement against original research in this policy, and then create a separate proposal (guideline or policy, i don't care) that will flesh out the details. Regardless of where we write about it though, i think that we must have something on the topic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested to know specifically how Rob would amend the current version of the proposed text so as to address his concerns. For example, is it sufficient to add under the "To be on the English-language Wikibooks, textbooks content must:" section the words "not be original research" to address this point, or, if not, what would he see as addressing it. Similarly, do we just need to add "be non-fiction" to address the non-fiction point? Are we just talking about an additional one or two sentence bit under the "Wikibooks complements Wikimedia" section to address the macropaedia point? Similarly, I'd be interested in how else Rob would amend the text to address any other concerns that he has. Jguk 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as how I would ammend this.... I already tried and was reverted. I don't need to add it in again and turn this into an edit war.  If you want to see what I would do, this was my edit in that direction.  I think this was one of the more positive policies on the previous version of this policy, and points to some clear places where you can add both fiction and do original research, if that is what you really want to do.  I still fail to see why this whole section needs to be eliminated.--Rob Horning 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that this policy represents the accumulated experience and history of Wikibooks. However, I can't say I understand your concern, because I disagree that changes present in this proposed revision for the policy is resulting in lost of all that accumlated experience. I believe its clarifying that accumulated experience through more positive reinforcements and addressing both the need for clarity and an updated reflection of current practise. I am trying to understand why your adding them, even if I do disagree with them, so I can better understand your position and reach a compromose we both can accept. So far though you haven't made it easy for me to understand your position and why you think its needed.


 * I agree that works of fiction and other literature aren't generally allowed unless its in the form of annotated texts. I don't dispute that, so I don't consider it unresolved. I'm not suggesting that this be a seperate policy either. I believe that through the definition of textbook and the bit on annotated texts, this proposed policy does explain why works of fiction and other literature don't belong here. What I'm trying to understand is how Robert or anyone else feels that this proposal inadequately addresses why they are not approperate for Wikibooks. For example, how would anyone not be able to point to this policy and clearly show, in its current form, that fiction and other literature aren't allowed?


 * My problem with focusing on macromedia and encyclopedia articles for policy is I don't believe its enough any more. I think we need to address the broader problem of content dumping in all its forms, not just from Wikipedia and not just in the form of encyclopedia articles. I could be wrong, but I believe its current practise to disallow it without much regard for the reason for it, unless there are people who are willing to develop it into textbook material independently of its original source. I would be agreeable to having "Be more than a collection of articles or list of terms, quotations, facts, images or other information (though books may include them)" taken and made into its own section somehow thats explained in more detail. That was actually part of the idea that was starting to form with the concept of secondary information. I think that "Wikibooks complements Wikimedia" could be that section. Explaining how each Wikimedia project has its own focus and the focus of Wikibooks is on textbooks and so most of these things don't belong here as a book within itself, but can be used as seconardy information within a book as an aid to readers, but nothing more than that. I do have some concern though that this issue may need to be addressed seperately from this policy because it seems like it could get rather big and may have a different focus and aim from this policy. I'm still working it out in my mind, but hopefully you see my point.


 * The original research concept, I believe needs to be made more positive and reflect current practise as with everything else that has been done to this policy. I think there needs to be a decision of some form as to whether or not that should be covered in this policy or in a seperate one. I favor rejecting WB:OR and focusing on better ways to describe the concept in this policy. For example if it there is a insistence on giving it a name, rather then describing it through content requirements, than use something like "established research is theories that have been peer reviewed and is generally accepted as fact." I would like to understand what problems, if any, that Robert or anyone else has with this approach. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have to say that in term of forking Wikipedia articles, I just dealt with an issue done by a new contributor today. See Physical Chemistry/Valence Bond Theory for what I marked as an issue.  And clearly this is yet another attempt to create a macropedia about in this case physical chemistry.  There is a very strong tendancy among Wikibooks authors to simply make a Wikibook to be a collection of articles about a given topic, where there is no distinction at all between Wikibooks and Wikipedia.  I'm not being paranoid here, but simply stating a simple observation I've made over a great deal of time.  This is something that absolutely must be explicitly mentioned.  Forking content from Wikipedia is fine, and is not in violation of the GFDL.  I should note that the rest of this user's contributions were out right copyright violations, so he is obviously just copying stuff because he doesn't know better.  But that doesn't stop abuses here of Wikibooks.


 * And while I may agree that the issue of Macropedias might need to be expanded, I feel that the wording I used in my previous edit to be quite reasonable and concise. It was also very positive in tone and even suggested alternatives for those who really want to make a macropedia.  It can be done on Wikipedia without even creating a Wikibook in the first place.  If so, there is no reason to make one here in the first place.  It is also current policy, and by removing it also removes and declares void this policy.  That is a huge change.  Or it turn this policy from something official to something much less concrete and open to objection.


 * As far as the original research policy wording, I'm really curious about what is so negative about it. It simply says that it is better to used the Academic Wikicity if you want to do original research, and notes that as a basic principle original resesearch is not done on Wikibooks.  Ammending the wording to make it more positive is much different than culling the whole policy altogether.  --Rob Horning 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary problem (at least concerning macropedias) is that not all people are capable of writing a textbook, and many people don't quite understand the difference between a textbook and a multi-page macropedia. This is a subject that people need to learn on their own, because nobody teaches how to write textbooks. That a textbook needs to have a centralized narrative implies that it requires a large amount of planning, dedication, and vision. These are all things that our contributors are not required to have before during or after they start authoring their books. Having more policy on these issues won't change the fact that most of our contributors (as well-meaning as they may be) are simply unable to properly author a textbook. Frankly, a macropedia makes a good start to a book, and only requires a certain "author's touch" to become something better, and I'm willing to wait around forever for somebody to deliver. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well at the end is easier to turn a macropedias into a book with some flow and a sense direction that it is to start it from scratch, I'm personally against teaching anyone how to write a book (that is giving a set of rules and guidelines), the best book one can write is the book one would like to read, this is not very complex and a basic use of common sense would do, this is part of the attraction I have on how books evolve on Wikibooks, it is with some pleasure that I can detect cultural influences on several books or as you state the "author's touch", but most users still prefer to be kept away from the work and personal involvement authoring entails (things do get dangerous out there), and this will not change even if numbers get increased the disparity of contributors vs authors will probably remain steady or even aggravate since the only reward an author has on Wikibooks is to accomplishing something he sees and hopes will be useful for others.
 * Another point to have in consideration is that it is easier for contributors to participate collectivity in a macropedia that to have several authors colaborating at the same time on a book especially under the Wikibooks infrastructure, were most personal relations are casual and based on assumptions and decisions don't require/can't support a long term compromise nor an end date for the job. --Panic 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Macropedias
I would like to point out that the issue of Macropedias is currently a part of the existing policy, and has been "official policy" since this version of this policy was created by User:KelvSYC, a long-time admin who practically ran Wikibooks single handedly back elsewhen. I see that Whiteknight is challenging this philosophy, which is fine, but my argument here is that this is currently policy and what is being proposed now is to remove this policy from Wikibooks. And that the policy was removed under the guise of a simplification where I think this is a signficant policy change and should not be omitted unless this is precisely where the Wikibooks community wants to go.

OK, I will admit that in actual practice the Wikibooks users do have a hard time trying to make a distinction between a Wikibooks module and a Wikipedia article. And often the two read so similarly that they can be transwikied between the two projects with most people not really understanding that there might be a difference.

One of the key points of this policy is that it very clearly defines a huge difference between Wikipedia and Wikibooks. Even if in practice we tend to fall short of the goal, it is still important to let people know what the idea "textbook" really could be here. Set the standard high enough and eventually much of what we produce will reach that standard.

In addition, I have tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to stop efforts that are really nothing more than a Wikiproject that was kicked off of Wikipedia for some reason or another. Wikibooks that clearly have no intention of being anything other than a collection of encyclopedia-like articles, such as frankly most of the video game guides were before they were deleted, fit this description. It really would be better if these articles were instead on Wikipedia (where they would get much more attention anyway) and you create a Wikipedia portal page to that content.

Keep in mind that Wikibooks was started specifically because User:Karl Wick decided to write Organic Chemistry on Wikipedia, but this content was kicked off due to the length it was getting on Wikipedia. This is the standard that Jimbo uses when trying to compare the rest of Wikibook's content, and frankly much of what we have does fall short of that sort of approach and quality. So the question I offer here is how to distinguish random Wikipedia articles that really should be on our sister project from those that really should be here on Wikibooks? --Rob Horning 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For clarification, I'm not challening the "no macropedias" rule, that's an established rule, and I dont see a reason to remove it. What I am advocating, however, is that while the aim of a book project here on wikibooks should not be to create a macropedia, the use of macropedia-like formatting as an intermediate state of book creation should be acceptable. My point being here that many people who are not familiar with authoring textbooks (which includes, essentially, everybody here) may not be immediately able to construct books in the proper format. Having a book that is essentially a macropedia shouldn't be cause for deletion (i dont feel that we should ever really delete content that is acceptable based on poor formatting), but should be cause for people to come in and improve it. I posit that all macropedias can become textbooks with far less effort required then it would take to author a new book on the subject from scratch.
 * Something that I would like to point out is that many books here begin life as a meer outline. And while outlines themselves are not acceptable material to host here on wikibooks, they are an acceptable intermediate state of material while a book is being created. Macropedias, while not recommendable, are likewise an acceptable intermediate step in book creation, but they are not (and should not ever be) an acceptable end point for a book project here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not add a timelimit or a limited life time as a macropedia and tag it as VfD after that has passed, maybe taking in consideration the last time the book was contributed (not edited) content, in the VfD we can add User:Whiteknight view that I agree completely, this will solve any future problems and bring content, even if the content in the final stage is discarded from Wikibooks it can be usefully elsewhere under the GFDL. --Panic 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A timeline, i think, is just not an acceptable tool. Textbooks take a long time to write, and all our authors here are volunteers. We must be patient with people as they author their textbooks, and we should not be in any kind of a hurry to mandate what kinds of progress must be made, and in what timeframe. The only punishment that we should use in such situations, is that books that are meerly macropedias should not be designated as "good", and should not appear on the main page or in Featured books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Narrative" as optional
I disagree with the change in the text to make a narrative an optional component of a book. A narrative is all that stands between a macropedia and a textbooks, and saying that a narrative is optional is tantamount to saying macropedias are acceptable. There is a strong historical precident for not allowing macropedias here, and i think we should follow that precident. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That was in response to the fact that references don't generally have a narrative which is an acceptable textbook. I could of sworn I read you urging above that macropedias can become acceptable textbooks with time and should be given a chance to become so. Have you changed your mind on that? Surely there is some other criteria that excludes macropedias from being developed here without relying on all books requiring a narrative and without making a special exception for it? --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A macropedia can become acceptable with the addition of a narrative. Once the information is written down, the addition of narrative and other "book features" is a relatively simple matter. I can understand your point about reference books, however. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)