So, this time
next year, we'll have to deal with hordes of people who
joined the project because of the book quoting it as policy in
discussions when the relevant policy has been updated. Boy, I'm
cynical.
I'd tend to agree. We might even have to create a whole new
disclaimers/guideline explicitly saying that Wikimedia didn't endorse this
book and that quoting it as "the truth" doesn't mean squat.
If the book is any good it'll point that out itself, along with the
fact that this is true of the policy pages on Wikipedia itself.
In that sense I could see the book going two completely different ways
- it could focus on quoting policy pages as written, or it could
instead focus on the de facto power structure and the concept of
"ignore all rules". The latter would be much more interesting.