Textbook-l June 2003

textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org

10 participants
27 discussions

Textbooks (response to Jimbo's WikiEN-l post)
by Daniel Mayer 03 Jul '03

03 Jul '03

Jimbo wrote: >Daniel Mayer wrote: >> The reason why our encyclopedias >> have to be NPOV is because our >> audience is a general one. The >> reason why our textbooks have to >> be DPOV is because our audience is >> very focused (the biology student, >> for example) and we need to bring >> that student through the material >> in a logical and efficient way. > >Hmmm, don't be so quick to dismiss >NPOV in this context. Consider: > >1. Within various disciplines there > are legitimate and ongoing disputes > of which students should be made aware. Yes, exactly. But our current NPOV policy states that we should include all major viewpoints in a neutral manor (notice the lack of focus). This makes perfect sense in an general focus encyclopedia but doesn't make much sense in a textbook. I was planning all along to take the NPOV text and make some minor qualifications in reference to the scope under which the new policy (DPOV) would operate. >2. If "outside" views are likely to > be encountered by students, then students > should be made aware of them, including > the weakness in their arguments. It depends on the focus of the particular course you are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't spend too much time defending the underlying premise that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution). There is a great deal of material to get through and therefore the arguments of creationism needn't be given much space or much credibility in such a textbook. However, if we can figure out how to organize chapters into modules then we can potentially create a very wide-foccused (and huge) textbook reference edition on all aspects of biology (including many counter-arguments to evolution and alternate interpretations of other aspects). That way instructors would be able to assemble textbooks from these modules into a variety of different configurations with each having a different emphasis (there would have to be a core set of modules that would form the foundation and framework of the textbook though). >> Same thing is true for a section of a >> medical textbook on abortion ; we leave >> out most of the history and the different >> political views on the subject and just >> talk about the procedure itself and maybe >> have a single paragraph at the end sating >> something about access to the procedure >> and that risks doctors face when they >> choose to specialize in this area. > >Right, but that's not POV-editing, that's >just restricting topical focus. Here's how >to tell -- an article which describes the >procedure neutrally (and in medical detail, >say) could be agreed upon by all reasonable >people, regardless of their political or >ethical views on the matter. Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical focus; that was my point. It reads in part "A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view." Simply replacing "encyclopedia" with "textbook" will not do for a textbook editing policy. If NPOV (as written) were applied to the evolution chapter of the above biology textbook example then we would have to present creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with the viewpoints of biologists. This is not acceptable when trying to explain evolution in a biology textbook because no serious biologist gives any credence to anti-evolution ideas. But NPOV can and should be applied to the major viewpoints that exist from within the biological sciences. There could still be optional modules that deal with the viewpoints of society as a whole - the larger debate (so that the same textbook could be used in a class that deals with those types of issues). The core modules need to be very specific in focus, though. Otherwise students won't know what to think (yes, part of education is indoctrination into the POV of a discipline). So yes, we can write about the current understanding of what evolution is and how it is theorized to operate but we cannot mix that with creationism viewpoints in the same module. So a modified NPOV ("DPOV") would need to operate in a compartmentalized fashion; within a core module it operates from within the context of whatever discipline the textbook is being written for; but in an optional module it can operate with a wider focus (although most optional modules are going to be more detailed treatments of certain topics raised in a core module). In short, the goals of what each module needs to do need to be focused. That requires restricting NPOV to that context. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

5 17

linearity
by Daniel Mayer 03 Jul '03

03 Jul '03

LDan wrote: >I'm not the programmer, but >should it really be a link to a >regular wiki page? I think it >would be more appropriate >if it linked to something like >[[Special:Next]] or {{NEXTPAGE}}. >It would also be convienient for >that to appear at the bottom of >the screen automatically, but that >would take some coding. I really, really like this idea; that way a particular module (wiki textbook page) could be used by several different textbooks. The software would keep track of the textbook (and module) the reader is reading from so that "Next page" always keeps the reader in the same textbook even when many of the modules of that textbook are shared. A possible way for the software to know the order of pages is to simply scan the table of contents of whatever textbook the reader is reading from. A website I've been working on uses JavaBeans to do this type of thing but I'm sure there is an open source solution. In short: Hard coding "Next page" is bad as far as scalability is concerned (but for now it should work fine). -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

3 3

linearity
by Karl Wick 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

>I thought the reason for a textbook was for it to be >linear. Otherwise, people could just use the >encyclopedia. The preliminary OChem book I am playing with has trains of continuity, although they are more flexible than in a printed book. Its a flexibility to link to all related subjects that I wish the textbooks that I use had. I dont think that most people would confuse an interlinked textbook with an encyclopedia, as a textbook seeks to actively teach, where an encyclopedia presents information more passively. Plus there is an overlying scheme of nested links that adds structure. But thats just how I see this book on this subject turning out right now, and is no comment on any other book or any other way or etc. I guess a textbook as I see it should help lead a person thru the subject even if it gives him freedom to change direction. Isnt learning more fun for you as a learner when you have some say on how you do it ? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

4 3

California Open Source Textbook Project
by Karl Wick 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

Here is a link to a group in CA that is working to make open content that it can license to other states with the goal of cutting K-12 textbook prices by 33-50%. http://www.opensourcetext.org/ It sounds like they are creating content that they will print up in hard copies for distribution or be the basis for derivative hard copy works. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: vandals, signin, linearity
by Karl Wick 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

If the main reason to have a required sign-in for page editing is to fight against vandals, is there another solution that would have the same benefits without the drawbacks ? The idea springs to mind to have a quick administrative function to revert to earlier page versions. It sounds like currently it is a hassle to revert vandalized pages. Is this true ? Would it be possible and reasonable to develop a one-click page revert function for admins ? I like the idea of making every textbook compilable into one printable document. Would it be feasible to add the feature to change the default order of book sections ? In my organic chemistry books the total content covered is the same but the order in which it is presented is not, and some professors and students prefer one order to another. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

4 3

flash animations
by Karl Wick 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

IN a textbook I could see a place for some small flash animations, for example to represent some organic reactions. I poked around the site but found nothing difinitive, except a lack of mention of flash usage. Could using flash animations in some contexts be a viable option ? Karl __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

2 1

flash animations
by Daniel Mayer 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

Karl wrote: >IN a textbook I could see a place for some small >flash animations, for example to represent some >organic reactions. I poked around the site but >found nothing definitive, except a lack of mention >of flash usage. Could using flash animations >in some contexts be a viable option? Heavens no! Macromedia Flash is a proprietary software program that users would have to install separately from their browser. In many cases this is difficult or impossible (thinking of Linux and other non-MS/non-Apple OSes). Animated GIFs are much better because they work in nearly every browser without requiring the user to install a plug-in. But all GIFs have possible patent issues and are therefore not a great option either. Hopefully MNG (the animated version of the open source PNG image format) will be supported by IE soon (users of IE need to install a plug-in to see these last time I checked). Heck I say we should use MNG for the textbooks since by the time any one textbook gets any type of attention IE will probably be able to display MNG animations out of the box. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

2 1

flash animations
by Daniel Mayer 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

Opps! I forgot the link to the Wikipedia article on MNGs: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNG -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

1 0

Some concept ideas
by Daniel Mayer 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

Toby wrote: >Maveric149 wrote in part: > >>IMO it would also make it much >>less obvious that anyone /can/ >>edit any page just by logging-in >>-- all they would see was "Protected >>page" where the edit button should >>be and "Log-in." That doesn't make >>it obvious we are a wiki, no? > >If we require /everybody/ to log in, then >it shouldn't say that. It should say "'''Edit >this page'''" with a nice bright link -- that >sends them to the log in page (returning >to the edit page). That is a bit misleading, no? I've had this trick played on me many times by clicking on a link that indicates there is content behind it just to be presented with a "free-registration" screen. My time is precious to me and when I'm presented with the reg screen I almost always hit the back button. Likewise many people who just want to test the system by correcting a typo will be put-off by the reg screen; we thus loose the opportunity to snag another editor. The NY Times does this type of thing and as a result I never read it on-line. If and when "anon edits" become a problem then we can think about restricting things (IMO this will never be a serious enough problem to warrent such action). -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

2 1

Re: Wikipedia may provide books made with different perspectives input, whilst others can't
by Daniel Mayer 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

Toby wrote: >But anyway, I doubt that DPOV >will ever be written up. Jimmy invented >NPOV, and he says that NPOV includes >what mav wants. > >If anything happens, it's that [[NPOV]] >will have to be clarified. But since Jimmy >also keeps agreeing with my >intepretations of it, I see no risk that >any such clarification will threaten your >book. The only alternative is that Jimmy's >opinions are incoherent, but nobody is >arguing that. Yep - all I ever really wanted was to clarify NPOV to suit the needs of textbooks (to give it a new framework or focus to work in - I mistakingly called that "POV"). I was just trying to be clear by giving it a new name but Jimbo has convinced me that the needed changes are not drastic enough to warrent a new name. It will just be the "textbook's version of NPOV." -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Textbook-l June 2003