FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Suthiporn Sajjapanroj" <ssajjapa(a)indiana.edu>
To: <wiki-research-l-owner(a)Wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:09:58 -0400
Subject: Research related to Wikibooks
Hello,
My following email was rejected from the Wiki Research mailing list
(wiki-research-l(a)wikimedia.org). Actually, I was suggested by Phoebe
Ayers to send this invitation to the mailing list. As you can see
below, I am working on a research related to Wikibooks. If you might
be able to help sending the bellowed invitation to the target group,
it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much,
Suthiporn
*******************
Hello,
My name is Suthiporn Sajjapanroj. I am a second-year doctoral student
at the Department of Education in Indiana University, Bloomington. My
professor, Dr. Curtis J. Bonk, and I are conducting a research related
to a Wikibook. The purpose of this study is to find the potential of
an instructional strategy, the creation of a Wikibook, to support
learning collaboration and social interactions across classrooms in
different educational institutions. You are invited to participate in
this research study. Your responses will help us understand online
collaboration in the creation of a Wikibook. This survey consists of
35 questions and will take you about 15 minutes to complete. Please
answer these questions to the best of your knowledge. Thank you very
much. Your participation is greatly appreciated. The survey can be
found at:
http://www.surveyshare.com/survey/take/?sid=36753
(If you are unable to click on the link, copy and paste it into your
Web browser.)
This survey will be collected anonymously on a secure server provided
by SurveyShare. Your survey responses will be kept confidential. Any
questions or problems can be sent to ssajjapa(a)indiana.edu.
Suthiporn Sajjapanroj
Ph.D. Student in Curriculum and Instruction
Indiana University
800 N.Union Street,
Bloomington, Indiana 47408
812-857-0009
Curtis J. Bonk, Professor
Indiana University
Instructional Systems Technology Department
School of Education: Room 2220
Bloomington, IN 47405-1006
(812) 856-8353 (work); 322-curt (cell)
E-mail: CJBonk(a)indiana.edu
812-856-8353
http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/
***********************
I'd like to comment on some things in Rob's last post.
First, where are examples of people moving How-to material that you believe ought to
remain in Wikibooks to Wikia with a link thereto? I was not aware this was happening.
Second, I do not believe the responses to your suggestion about the possibility of having
a textbook on Doom are consistent with your account here. I think the relevant
discussions are all here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Archive_19#Gaming_manua…
You made a suggestion, Jimbo showed scepticism, but also noted that he was willing
to be convinced otherwise. User:Jtvisona (which is not a Wikibooks user account name)
then suggested that there were serious courses on it (without offering proof). After that,
RobinH, Dragontamer, Lord Voldemort, hagindaz and myself noted that such a textbook
would be possible and would be ok on Wikibooks. Although there were notes that the
current Doom Wikibook was not such a textbook and that it would take a lot of time
to write a textbook on Doom so that you may not wish to see it through, and there was
a suggestion that a wider scope, to consider other strategy games, might be better.
The other commenters, Garrett and Gerard Foley, did not comment on the point explicitly,
but their tone (and the knowledge that they are both keen gamers) suggests they
are not against the idea. Jimbo did not comment again. I therefore think your statement
that there was the "substantial resistance and even outright rejection" that you say there
was.
Kind regards
Jon
(jguk)
It would be useful if Jimmy would comment on the questions asked, but I would like to make the following comments (the numbers refer to Lord Voldemort's initial email):
1, 2. My understanding is that Wikibooks' purpose always has been to provide textbooks. Article II of the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws says, in part, refers to "... a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books) named Wikibooks". (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws )
3. The Wikimedia Foundation, operating through its Board, have overall control of Wikibooks (they set its scope in the Foundation bylaws, and can choose to change this or to close the project if they see fit). However, subject to this, Wikibookians deal with the day to day editing of the site, including the setting of site policies (whilst this is subject to them being consistent with what the WMF says, the WMF is very hands-off in this regard).
4, 5. Games guides are not textbooks. Therefore they do not fit within Wikibooks' purpose.
6, 7. Wikibooks' contributors must work within the defined scope of the project. They are on a very free rein as to what they do, but they cannot extend this scope. Requests for scope changes and new Wikimedia projects can be made on Metawiki.
8. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There is no special Wikibooks definition of it. A textbook on games, game design, history of games that would assist someone studying them would be within Wikibooks' scope. Note, however, that no-one would reasonably describe a simple games walkthrough as a textbook. They might call it a guide or perhaps, at a push, a manual, but it would not be a textbook in the normal sense.
9. A straightforward guide on a board game would not normally be described as a textbook. As for game guides, however, it would be possible to write a detailed textbook on some board games suitable for students.
10, 11. The talk of an "accredited institution" metric appears to have been suggested mostly by those speaking out in favour of keeping games guides, with the idea of rubbishing it as providing too narrow an inclusion criterion. We don't need such a metric - the general test is whether the book is or is not a textbook (but see my qualification of this below). An "accredited institution" metric along the lines of "if a subject is studied in a number of accredited institutions it can be deemed worthy of study" may be acceptable in the sense that textbook subjects meeting that test should be allowed. However, any such test should not be limiting - there are many worthwhile subjects for study that do not meet that test that are within Wikibooks' scope.
12. Inevitably the removal of game guides from Wikibooks will see those who only edited those areas of Wikibooks leave. It will also see those who spent some of their time on Wikibooks on editing game guides, and some time on textbooks, reduce the time they spend on Wikibooks. On the other hand, a more focused Wikibooks will help attract other new editors committed to providing quality open-content textbooks.
13. I would add the following. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There are many possible subject areas and styles for textbooks. The word should be interpreted widely on Wikibooks, but the meaning should not be stretched so as to include texts that are clearly not textbooks in any sense of the word. There are also some subjects that are innately inappropriate as subjects of textbooks, or which would be deemed unsuitable - these are few and far between, but might include textbooks extolling black (or white) supremacy, a textbook to train people in terrorism, a textbook on a little recognised constructed language (such as one I have just made up, or which literally only a handful of people have any interest in). Other than extreme cases such as these (which can be discussed on WB:VFD), all textbooks should be welcome on Wikibooks.
X. There has not been a suggestion that all "How-tos" were removed. Jimbo has noted that some "How-tos" should be removed (which was certainly true at the time). This unfortunately, but I believe erroneously, was picked up by some to mean that all How-tos should be removed.
Y. Eric Moeller's suggestion of renaming Wikibooks to Wikitextbooks has some merit. Although "Wikitextbooks" is longer and less sexy, it would make clearer to everyone what Wikibooks' scope is. Many people, particularly on Wikipedia, incorrectly think that any book content is suitable for Wikibooks. This is a misconception that really should be removed.
Kind regards
Jon
(jguk)
It would be useful if Jimmy would comment on the questions asked, but I would like to make
the following comments (the numbers refer to Lord Voldemort's initial email):
1, 2. My understanding is that Wikibooks' purpose always has been to provide textbooks.
Article II of the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws says, in part, refers to "... a collection of e-book
resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain
books) named Wikibooks".
(see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws )
3. The Wikimedia Foundation, operating through its Board, have overall control of Wikibooks
(they set its scope in the Foundation bylaws, and can choose to change this or to close the
project if they see fit). However, subject to this, Wikibookians deal with the day to day editing
of the site, including the setting of site policies (whilst this is subject to them being consistent
with what the WMF says, the WMF is very hands-off in this regard).
4, 5. Games guides are not textbooks. Therefore they do not fit within Wikibooks' purpose.
6, 7. Wikibooks' contributors must work within the defined scope of the project. They are on a
very free rein as to what they do, but they cannot extend this scope. Requests for scope changes
and new Wikimedia projects can be made on Metawiki.
8. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There is no special Wikibooks definition of it. A
textbook on games, game design, history of games that would assist someone studying them
would be within Wikibooks' scope. Note, however, that no-one would reasonably describe a
simple games walkthrough as a textbook. They might call it a guide or perhaps, at a push, a
manual, but it would not be a textbook in the normal sense.
9. A straightforward guide on a board game would not normally be described as a textbook.
As for game guides, however, it would be possible to write a detailed textbook on some board
games suitable for students.
10, 11. The talk of an "accredited institution" metric appears to have been suggested mostly by
those speaking out in favour of keeping games guides, with the idea of rubbishing it as providing
too narrow an inclusion criterion. We don't need such a metric - the general test is whether the
book is or is not a textbook (but see my qualification of this below). An "accredited institution"
metric along the lines of "if a subject is studied in a number of accredited institutions it can be
deemed worthy of study" may be acceptable in the sense that textbook subjects meeting that test
should be allowed. However, any such test should not be limiting - there are many worthwhile
subjects for study that do not meet that test that are within Wikibooks' scope.
12. Inevitably the removal of game guides from Wikibooks will see those who only edited those
areas of Wikibooks leave. It will also see those who spent some of their time on Wikibooks on
editing game guides, and some time on textbooks, reduce the time they spend on Wikibooks. On
the other hand, a more focused Wikibooks will help attract other new editors committed to
providing quality open-content textbooks.
13. I would add the following. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There are many possible
subject areas and styles for textbooks. The word should be interpreted widely on Wikibooks, but
the meaning should not be stretched so as to include texts that are clearly not textbooks in any sense
of the word. There are also some subjects that are innately inappropriate as subjects of textbooks,
or which would be deemed unsuitable - these are few and far between, but might include textbooks
extolling black (or white) supremacy, a textbook to train people in terrorism, a textbook on a little
recognised constructed language (such as one I have just made up, or which literally only a handful
of people have any interest in). Other than extreme cases such as these (which can be discussed on
WB:VFD), all textbooks should be welcome on Wikibooks.
X. There has not been a suggestion that all "How-tos" were removed. Jimbo has noted that some
"How-tos" should be removed (which was certainly true at the time). This unfortunately, but I believe
erroneously, was picked up by some to mean that all How-tos should be removed.
Y. Eric Moeller's suggestion of renaming Wikibooks to Wikitextbooks has some merit. Although
"Wikitextbooks" is longer and less sexy, it would make clearer to everyone what Wikibooks' scope is.
Many people, particularly on Wikipedia, incorrectly think that any book content is suitable for
Wikibooks. This is a misconception that really should be removed.
Kind regards
Jon
(jguk)
Hello,
CommonsTicker is a special tool created by
(commons:,meta:,:de:w:)User:Duesentrieb to allow for greater
communication and transparency between the Commons and local projects
(all projects, all languages) that use the Commons. When it is set up,
a log page is created and a bot posts updates about any critical
events that occur to any Commons images that are being used by that
project. Critical events are: image replacement (a new version of an
image being uploaded over the top of an existing one), an image being
marked or unmarked with a deletion tag (including no source, etc), and
an image being deleted.
This allows local project users to immediately identify any images
that have been nominated for deletion, giving them plenty of notice to
take part in the deletion discussion, as well as checking that image
replacements are not vandalism and removing any red links from deleted
images.
CommonsTicker is completely translatable (if you provide a
translation). All it needs to be set up is a project admin to
"sponsor" it through the early days. Now taking requests! :)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker :
instructions on set-up, contact, translation, request queue
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:CommonsTicker : Example
Ticker in English
(There are also Tickers already set up in German, Indonesian, Italian,
Dutch, Chinese and Slovak.)
cheers,
Brianna (commons:user:pfctdayelise)