I am wandering is it a local policy on en: (and some other Wikibooks)
or, like on Wikipedia, it is a global policy?
Yes, this is reasonable if we are talking only about manuals and
school books. However, I would like to see, for example, a book about
web servers comparison and I don't think that it is reasonable to stop
people writing such kinds of books. Also, I'd like to see essays and
even fiction books on Wikibooks, too. Of course, with defining what
kind of books would be able not to be NPOV and NOR (for example, I
don't think that a book about history may be POV) and with marking
such books as OR and POV.
If it is locally related to en:, projects in other languages may not
follow such rules. However, it would be better to have a global policy
with definitions what may and what may not be OR and/or POV.
I think that it is better to have strong Wikibookian communities with
a lot of fiction on Wikibooks then much smaller communities without
fiction on Wikibooks.
I know that it sounds hereticly :) However, I would like to see a good
skilled (amateur) astronomer who prefer to write SF on Wikibooks. He
may start to write a book about astronomy through some time.
I'd like to invite you to participate in a survey about Wikimedia's
brands, their uses, and possible changes to our brand strategy:
Peace & Love,
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
I am srujan kumar , 18 years old and a student
of computer science from india. I have planned to develop a website for my
colleagues and other students of computer science from where they could get latest
information on technology and some useful tips and tutorials for free.As i dont have a proper idea of
GNU Free Documentation License, i want to check whether i can use the content from www.wikibooks.org in my website with some ads. If i can use, then what are the steps i should follow to put the content onto my website. please help me.
____________________________________________________________________________________Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for
k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still
learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is
really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities. Actually,
a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we
are not supposed to do curriculum.
Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my info:
Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:
"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all
languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several
projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks
project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and
it will take much longer."
Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but
certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities, etc.
I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so
that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based
curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an
appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above,
Florence Devouard wrote:
> I, for one, think it is great to work on better defining the mission
> of Wikibooks. I have one question though, do you know if the
> definition worked upon is generally shared with other wikibooks people
> ? Are they other wikibooks that have worked on such a definition, and
> where the outcome differs widely from yours ?
At last count 18 people supported it and 7 people objected to it. As others
have already said, some disagree on limiting English Wikibooks to just
textbooks, how much emphases on textbooks be be given, whether or not it
should be a policy or guideline and some have concerns on the clarity of the
There is quite a difference from English Wikibooks' current version and the
German version. Google's German to English translation of the German
There have been previous proposals on English Wikibooks to redefine the
current policy as well, before they were merged together:
that AFAIK, were abandoned before ever getting to the point of seeking input
from the community to accept or reject them.
Textbook-l mailing list
I got this email today, don't know if it's legitimate or what. I also dont
know why they singled out me, or thanked me for Wikibooks. Anyway, what do
people make of this?
>From: Worldlibrary <webmaster(a)worldlibrary.net>
>To: Whiteknight <wknight8111(a)hotmail.com>
>Subject: Wikibooks Usage Permission
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:08:43 GMT
>We would like to thank you for creating such a wonderful e-textbook and
>e-document collection. The Wikibooks project is a true contribution to the
>academic and research community by preserving and assisting access to
>textbooks and references online. We would like to include a link to your
>collection at www.wikibooks.org and include several of the GNU Free
>Documentation License Wikibooks in the Project Gutenberg Consortia Center
>Collection, World eBook Fair, and the World Public Library Consortia.
>Please accept our sincere wish to recognize your wonderful works by
>promoting public awareness and readership of the Wikibooks project.
>Thank you very much for reviewing our request for use permission of the
>Wikibooks Collection for inclusion in Project Gutenberg Consortia Center,
>World eBook Fair, and the World Public Library Consortia for the exclusive
>purpose of private study, research, criticism or review. The World Public
>Library and Project Gutenberg Consortia Center are Non-profit organizations
>dedicated to promote online literacy.
>A list of our contributors may be viewed at the following URLs:
>http://gutenberg.cc/Catalogs.htm, http://worldebookfair.com, and
>1,982 PDF files, Census Bureau eDocument Collection
>2,019 PDF files, FOIA's: Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room
>2,600 files, CIA Declassified Documents Collection and World Fact Book
>1,200 PDF files, Center on Religion and Democracy, University of Virginia
>700 PDF files, United Nations Document Collection
>584 FWDP PDF files, Collection Fourth World Document Project
>11,820 PDF files, Environmental Awareness Library Collection (EPA
>577 PDF files, NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
>635 PDF files, NOAA: National Oceanographic Data Center Collection
>11,420 PDF files, Medical Publications Collection: Department of Health and
>Human Services and Center for Disease Control and Prevention
>308 PDF files, The Federal Aviation Administration
>6,620 PDF files, Government Accountability Integrity Reliability Office
>7,192 PDF files, U.S. Government Printing Office Collection
>2,720 PDF files, White House ePublication Collection
>12,000 PDF files, Project Gutenberg Collection
>788 files, eBooks@adelaide Collection
>450 files Project Gutenberg Australia
>15,000 PDF files, Black Mask Collection
>900 PDF files, Sacred-Text Collection (Religious Literature)
>647 PDF files, Wiretap and Alex (English Literature)
>28 PDF files, The Victorian Prose Archive
>200 PDF files, Tony Kline Collection
>1,700 PDF files, Renascence Editions (Renascence Literature)
>277 PDF files, Ebooks Libres & Gratuits Collection (French Literature)
>199 PDF files, Classic Chinese Literature Collection
>150,000 files ACIP - Asian Classic Input Project
>760 PDF files, CELT: Corpus of Electronic Texts Collection (Irish
>18,000 files ibiblio - World Literature Collection
>34,000 PDF files, Logo Group - Multi Language eBook and eDocument
>27,000 Music Files, Hawaiian Virtual Library - Hawaiian eMusic Collection
>3,000 files Videos Internet Archive
>900 PDF files, Peitho's Web
>1,300 PDF files, BhuddaNet Collection
>109 PDF files, DjVu Edition eBooks
>6,000 files Million Book Project and Open Source Collection
>100 files Literal Systems Collection
>91 PDF files, The Rosetta Project
>685 Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts
>175 PDF files, The Coradella Bookshelf Collection
>58 PDF files, Baen Free Library
>and more . . .
>**(## Wikibooks Collection)**
>Please let us know if there is any other way we can be of assistance to
>Best wishes and aloha,
>John S. Guagliardo
> Executive Director, World Public Library, www.WorldLibrary.net
> Co-Founder, World eBook Fair, www.WorldeBookFair.com
> Director, Project Gutenberg Consortia Center, www.Gutenberg.cc
> P.O. Box 22687
> Honolulu, Hawaii 96823
> (808) 292-2068 Office
> (808) 923-2157 Fax
> Project Gutenberg Consortia Center
> Bringing the World's eBook Collections Together
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the im Initiative now.
Its free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Andrew Whitworth" <wknight8111(a)hotmail.com>
> To: textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:30:17 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Logo discussion
> >I disagree that the logo is necessarily a limiting factor on the
> >development and progression of Wikibooks as a project, but I would have
> >to agree that the current logo is clearly dated and does need to be
> >updated to something a little more polished beyond the rough idea that
> >Wikibookians came up with nearly four years ago. And the current
> >"slogan" is also in dire need of improvement.
> I'm just thinking about a PR standpoint. It's going to be easier for
> organizations to take our project seriously if we have a professional look
> to us. This requires a good logo, a good slogan, and some kind of
> that we aren't a rag-tag group of internet losers. I think that we carry
> ourselves very well, but if our logos and slogans and all are trashy, our
> project is going to look like trash by extension. That's been my primary
> motivation behind redesigning the main page, or redesigning the staff
> lounge, or making all sorts of other aesthetic improvements.
This is true, the logo and the main page ARE the first things that any PR
people would look at, what, may I ask, was the reason that the WMF insisted
on a certain set of colors? This, I think, is another good reason to have
the main page set up as it is now, to be more reader-oriented.
>What it really needs right now is for somebody to take on this issue and
> >set up the "voting" pages somewhere neutral that would also strongly
> >involve Wikibookians on all of the various language editions of
> >Wikibooks, not just en.wikibooks.
> I'm not against doing that kind of thing. I'm busy myself in the next few
> days, but if nobody steps up to this plate, I will.
Its hard for me to think of a neutral place except maybe commons, if (as I
may gather from previous discussions) Meta was not appropriate last time.
But maybe we could try Meta again, this time with a better understanding of
what the WMF wants from the final product, to avoid the whole thing being
turned upside-down on us.
>Rather than trying to get WMF involvement in the logo selection, we
> >should try to find out what went wrong with the logo selection process
> >and try to fix those problems for the next round, if we want to go
> I'm pretty convinced that "what went wrong" was the WMF enforcing new
> stipulations after the voting was already over. They had a logo all picked
> out and voted on, and then the WMF told us that the colors were wrong.
>One of the major complaints regarding the logo selection process on the
> >last round was that the active Wikibookians involved with content
> >development were largely not involved with the logo selection on Meta.
> This is the fault of the wikibookians, not with those who were voting on
> discussion. We posted notices, on the site notice, on the main page (when
> the site notice was hijacked for Wikimania and fundraising messages), and
> personally posted it on the staff lounge more then once. If wikibookians
> were not part of the discussion, it's because they chose not to
> We can't complain if people are given the opportunity, and choose not to
> take it. What I can't speak for, however, are the other languages, I dont
> know how well the logo discussion was advertised to speakers of other
>I would like
> >to hear from others on this list in regards to this point, and is it at
> >least possible that potential logos weren't selected because a block of
> >individuals indifferent to Wikibooks were involved in its selection?
> I don't think that we should cast non-wikibookians as second-class
> when making votes. All wikimedians want our project to succeed, and all
> wikimedians have to look at our lousy logo on the main pages of the other
> projects. Like I said before, the process would have succeeded if a
> last-minute color change stipulation wasn't made: A logo had already been
I think I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a
miscommunication, unless I can see some evidence of such prejudices. And
yes, since we're all part of the same project, people who are not part of
wikibooks can also have their say, though I think it's somewhat unfair if
someone outside the wikibooks community makes the final decision.
>Something else that perhaps ought to be looked at is the selection
> >process of the logo itself.
> Again, Something that I will look at personally, if nobody beats me to it.
> >Perhaps even other ideas like a logo selection committee or even
> >something more off the wall could be considered instead.... although I
> >do think a fiat decision by the WMF board would be a very bad idea.
> I'm not asking for a fiat decision, just a hand up out of the hole that
> we've been dug into. Maybe what we need is some kind of impetus: the WMF
> could set some kind of "deadline", even if it was a soft one, and that
> motivate people to get off their asses and get the job done. Or, the WMF
> could say "we have selected a logo, we want to change the colors. Vote on
> the new colors, and the winner is the new logo of Wikibooks". Even if the
> board never follows up on these statements, it will serve as the
> the community needs to finish this mess up.
> --Andrew Whitworth
> More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live
> Textbook-l mailing list
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Besides everything else which has been said already, I do not find
>> these names particularly appealing. "Wikibooks" is short and catchy,
>> "Wikipedia Textbooks" is long and clumsy and has a taste of
>> ugly marketspeak.
> Wikibooks is actually one of our most problematic names, as the focus
> is very much on textbook development. Short and catchy as it ma ybe,
> it is misleading. Fundamentally, I can see problems with the project's
> conception around a very specific type of knowledge representation (be
> it generally a book or specifically a textbook), but if that is how we
> define it, then we should at least be clear what _kind_ of books we
> are talking about.
(Cross posting to textbook-l as this is a perennial issue that still
needs to be resolved)
I don't see that the name "Wikibooks" is necessarily as problematic as
you are suggesting here, Eric. Nor do I see that "textbook development"
is necessarily the only focus of Wikibooks, even though I would admit
that it is a major component of the Wikibooks and should be emphasized.
It would be interesting to see what the sense of the WMF board is on
this issue in terms of how focused Wikibooks ought to be on textbooks
and what kind of definition of textbooks could be used to distinguish
what should or should not be found on Wikibooks. A massive campaign to
remove whole categories of content from Wikibooks has been underway for
some time, but the actual working definition of what really should
belong on that project has never been made clear by those who would have
the authority to define this sort of scope of the project.
An effort by the community is currently under way on Wikibooks to help
define this scope as best as can be done at the moment without WMF board
I would hope that WMF board members would be aware of this current
version of this fundamental policy, as it appears very likely that this
will become official and enforced policy on en.wikibooks in the very
near future. I have raised some objections to this policy as it has
been written, but this is as much of a compromise as we ordinary folks
trying to figure out the mayhem of our little project can muster at the
moment, and represents nearly a full year of effort by very active
community members to help come up with this definition.
I would hope that non-textbook books could also eventually have a role
on Wikibooks, but mine is a small voice that is mostly ignored on this
There have been numerous disagreements over it, several of them have been
voiced at this link:
Basically people disagree to what extent things that are not textbooks
should be excluded, the definition of textbooks, the process by which the
policy was brought to the fore, how strictly we should follow the letter of
the policy/guideline, and various other things.
I also do not feel that the name "wikibooks" is particularly problematic
because some of the things on there it would be somewhat a stretch to call
them textbooks (eg chess) but they're closer to it than VG walkthroughs.
Plus I do agree that "wikipedia textbooks" is clunky AND implies a
dependence on Wikipedia which, as far as I know, we are trying to avoid in
the interest of maintaining a sort of separate identity between us.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
> To: textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 08:40:57 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands
> Robert Horning wrote:
> > Erik Moeller wrote:
> >> On 5/8/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Besides everything else which has been said already, I do not find
> >>> these names particularly appealing. "Wikibooks" is short and catchy,
> >>> "Wikipedia Textbooks" is long and clumsy and has a taste of
> >>> ugly marketspeak.
> >> Wikibooks is actually one of our most problematic names, as the focus
> >> is very much on textbook development. Short and catchy as it ma ybe,
> >> it is misleading. Fundamentally, I can see problems with the project's
> >> conception around a very specific type of knowledge representation (be
> >> it generally a book or specifically a textbook), but if that is how we
> >> define it, then we should at least be clear what _kind_ of books we
> >> are talking about.
> > (Cross posting to textbook-l as this is a perennial issue that still
> > needs to be resolved)
> > I don't see that the name "Wikibooks" is necessarily as problematic as
> > you are suggesting here, Eric. Nor do I see that "textbook development"
> > is necessarily the only focus of Wikibooks, even though I would admit
> > that it is a major component of the Wikibooks and should be emphasized.
> > It would be interesting to see what the sense of the WMF board is on
> > this issue in terms of how focused Wikibooks ought to be on textbooks
> > and what kind of definition of textbooks could be used to distinguish
> > what should or should not be found on Wikibooks. A massive campaign to
> > remove whole categories of content from Wikibooks has been underway for
> > some time, but the actual working definition of what really should
> > belong on that project has never been made clear by those who would have
> > the authority to define this sort of scope of the project.
> > An effort by the community is currently under way on Wikibooks to help
> > define this scope as best as can be done at the moment without WMF board
> > assistance:
> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstable
> > I would hope that WMF board members would be aware of this current
> > version of this fundamental policy,
> as it appears very likely that this
> > will become official and enforced policy on en.wikibooks in the very
> > near future. I have raised some objections to this policy as it has
> > been written, but this is as much of a compromise as we ordinary folks
> > trying to figure out the mayhem of our little project can muster at the
> > moment, and represents nearly a full year of effort by very active
> > community members to help come up with this definition.
> > I would hope that non-textbook books could also eventually have a role
> > on Wikibooks, but mine is a small voice that is mostly ignored on this
> > subject.
> I would be curious to hear more about what you disagree with in that
> I, for one, think it is great to work on better defining the mission of
> Wikibooks. I have one question though, do you know if the definition
> worked upon is generally shared with other wikibooks people ? Are they
> other wikibooks that have worked on such a definition, and where the
> outcome differs widely from yours ?
> Textbook-l mailing list