http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_textbook
Here is a link to a bit of preliminary work that I have
been playing with on the test wiki. It includes hard coded
page navigation links.
BTW Brion I really like the table of contents stuff that
you seem to have done there, and like the idea of editing
one section at a time of those big pages.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This outline isn't necessarily suitable for all texts, but is likely a
useful way to proceed for K-12 texts that need to be designed to meet
state content standards.
1. Develop internal integrated content standards, based on publicly
available content standards such as:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/standards/science/grade1.html (California)
http://www.firn.edu/doe/curric/prek12/pdf/sciencek.pdf (Florida)
ftp://ftp.alsde.edu/documents/54/04SciK-2.rtf (Alabama)
The attempt here would be to integrate and harmonize as many of these
as is reasonably feasible, including UK and Australian and others as
needed.
2. Write texts that precisely mirrors the standards put forward
in item #1.
-------
One thing that this method does is eliminate _our_ need to deal with
certain complex questions regarding the proper order of instruction in
various fields. Much of this work has been done for us, and if our
texts are to gain widespread use, we will need to meet the needs of
end users and the decision makers who control which texts are adopted.
The same thing is most likely true for college texts. For example,
economics is normally taught in two semesters, Economics 101 and
Economics 102. Normally one course is 'micro' and one course is
'macro'. But in any event, to the extent that these courses are
pre-requisites for other courses later on, any valid text will need to
cover certain points outlined in the course description.
My thinking here is that just as the wikipedia _encyclopedia_ is
envisioned as a neutral reference standard, as opposed to an avenue
for original research, Wikimedia _textbooks_ should be neutral and
tend to avoid original pedagogy.
--Jimbo
Jimmy:
Did you answer your own question about the California Open
Source Textbook licenses ?
Here is text I pulled from their site: "COSTP intends to
use Creative Commons licenses for selected content.
Creative Commons licenses allow creators to let the public
to copy and distribute their work, but only on certain
conditions, and while retaining their copyright."
Hope I'm not wasting your time with old news.
Karl
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
>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
The examples in my last post were very confusing (I used "moduleid" where I
should have used "sectionid"). Here is a corrected version:
Links on the TOC to specific modules would have info in them (after a & or ?)
that would give placement info. So clicking on a link to the first module in
Chapter one would give
http://textbook.wikibook.org/en/organic_chemistry_level_1?textbookTOCid=453…
The textbook name is "organic chemistry level 1" The particular table of
contents for this version of the level 1 organic chemistry textbook is
identified with the automatic number 4536 (or a unique name; it doesn't
really matter). Anybody can build a TOC with different modules and the TOC
becomes the organizing structure of that version of the textbook. The other
info (sectionid and chapterid) are retrieved from the TOC and advanced as
needed as the software keeps track of where the reader is. The actual modules
would have been previously associated with particular sections and chapters
when the TOC was made.
And the "Next Page" link at the bottom would then be able to know where it was
in the order of things and would give:
http://textbook.wikibook.org/en/organic_chemistry_level_1?textbookTOCid=453…
NOTE: The sectionid is now equal to "2."
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Jimbo said:
>...
>The Creative Commons licenses are
>much simpler.
I don't know about that (I just read a few) but dual licensing might be a nice
option to have (thus making our text usable in other Creative Commons works).
However everything on our server would have to be dual licensed or we would
have a situation where some parts of some modules are dual licensed and other
parts are either GNU FDL or Creative Commons. It is difficult enough already
to convince outside authors to allow us to use their work under /one/
license. Of course I could be misunderstanding how dual-licensing works.
Maybe we should talk to the Mozilla people about how they deal with their
dual-license. It would also be nice to know what RMS thinks about
dual-licensing in general and the specific Creative Common licenses that we
might use in particular.
>I believe that the 'Attribution-Share Alike'
>license or the 'Share Alike' license is going
>to be the right one to use if we did choose
>to go that route.
Attribution-Share Alike seems to be most consistent with the GNU FDL. For
"Attribution" we can have the same simple policy as we have on WIkipedia; a
url to the original.
>Actually, what I think we should do, from the
>outset, is dual-license everything under both
>licenses. That ensures that the text is
>compatible with Wikipedia.
But dual-licensing may create a big problem with text flowing from Wikipedia
(GFDL only) to a textbook (GFDL/Creative Commons Share Alike). Wouldn't each
and every author of the Wikipedia text have to agree to have their work
licensed under the Creative Commons Share Alike license? If not then we are
going to make things rather difficult for downstream users of the our text
who would have to sort out which licenses apply to various modules and parts
of modules. Only having one license would be simpler, no?
>It's a bit late for Wikipedia proper to do
>much good with dual licensing, but for
>textbooks, it might be a good idea to do
>it from the outset.
I like the idea but I have some reservations.
Creative Commons Share Alike license:
Require attribution?
X Yes
No
Allow commercial uses of your work?
X Yes
No
Allow modifications of your work?
Yes
X Yes, as long as others share alike
No
Which results in:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
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
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