Peter, I was given this page as one to look at and discuss naming, branding, etc: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey
Maybe you can give them your quarter's worth using your expertise and motivation.
-Kathy
-----Original Message----- From: Monahon, Peter B. [mailto:Peter.Monahon@USPTO.GOV] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:29 AM To: Wikimedia textbook discussion Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] NPOV and NOR as a local or a global policies onWikibooks?
Thanks for your considered reply, Andrew.
We disagree, and that's not a bad thing. Perhaps this dialog will help us polish our beliefs, perhaps we will even persuade ourselves to new beliefs.
Although I'm only one person, that's neither important nor unimportant. It's the ideas themselves that I share that are worthy or unworthy, on their own merits, regardless of how many people sign my email.
I'm still not sure what Wikibooks is. Although you can try to educate me, why not enhance the Wikibooks front page for everyone, and then just share a link here? Are you saying Wikibooks is for cooperative authorship of NEW technical, non-fiction, and how-to manuals? Let me study the NOR No Original Research policy on that one! Or, is Wikibooks only OLD stuff that's not copyrighted anymore ... and, what, we're just editing and rewriting OLD stuff? Are you saying that because fiction is too hard to cooperatively co-author, the Wikibook site has evolved away from fiction? Because it's too hard? Geesh - I'd love a Wikimusic, er, excuse me, a Wikicomposer site. Teams make music all the time. True, one author makes a vanity press, but two authors together make a Wikipress. HEY, a new Wiki name! Get in cahoots with some on-demand publishers and let author teams have at it, and let visitors order their own hard copy! I digress ... but do I, really?
I didn't write to Amazon, but I also didn't buy from them (I used http://www.abebooks.com/). As I mentioned, the Amazon name at first seem to mean nothing, but ACQUIRED distinctiveness as a book store, and it was only later that I realized that the word Amazon was not descriptive of their bookstore-ness, but was a hint or simile describing their desire to be as large a thoroughfare as the Amazon River is, "the largest river in the world by volume" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River. In other words, Amazon wants to be "the largest internet seller in the world by volume", or something like that. By the way, Amazon is so taken by the Wikipedia/MediaWiki whirlwind that they have started their own at http://amapedia.amazon.com/. Check it out.
You make my own point in why you didn't share links to Wikibooks: "they are not particularly well-maintained nor aesthetically pleasing"! Hey, Andrew, I'm not faulting anybody. I'm just saying. Why are we writing here when we could find and fix 'em, instead?
Nike's slogan (battle cry) may be "Just do it!" but "Just do it" is not their name, and neither their slogan nor their name is a generic description of their product. Wikibooks IS intended to be a generic identifier of the product, and as such I found it inaccurate and misleading (a waste of the builder's and visitor's time), hence the suggestion to switch to a non-descriptive name like "Wikiralph", hahaha. I was joking, but consider the source. See my email address to help explain why I'm focusing on marks in trade. "Nike" is a GREAT mark in that it does not define ONE product. If they had called themselves "Sneakers", they'd eventually have a challenge selling non-sneakers. By calling themselves Nike after the Greek goddess of victory, they can sell anything to anyone who wants to feel victorious. Very savvy. "WIKI"-anything is descriptive; a "Wikibooks" that excludes SOME books is by definition misdescriptive. I'm just trying to find out what Wikibooks IS, if it's not where to find "quick, community built books" of any type, totally in the control of the individual teams of contributors.
It absolutely IS our job to provide Wikibooks visitors with information, especially about what Wikibooks is NOT, and share where others go to find non-Wikibooks offerings. Like Santa Clause in the "Miracle on 34th Street" movie, if you ask Macy's for something they don't have, and you know it's at Gimbals, then send them to Gimbals. Instead of frustrating visitors, you're inviting them to come back, time after time, because THIS is where they found help! In that vein, I suggest, on the front page,
Wikibooks is NOT: - A cooperative of fiction authors - see http://www.yada,yada,yada.com/ for that. - On-demand publishing - see http://www.blah-blah-blah.com/ for that.
... and so on. Actually, why not make a Wikibooks page saying what Wikibooks is NOT? I'm familiar with http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Replies_to_common_objections but it's buried, not well formatted, and seems structured as a random sheave of notes. Let's create:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_is_not
... linked form the Wikibooks front page. Then, let us all share our own links in various categories that direct Wikibooks visitors to reasonable alternatives for what they are looking for, because NPOV Neutral Point Of View and NOR No Original Research and other "limits" cause Wikibooks to refrain from such offering. But, "thanks for visiting, return often, and share what you learn when it's appropriate to do so here."
What say?
- Peter Blaise
PS - I'm reading and will respond to others very, very thoughtful replies later. I must get some other tasks completed first. Thank you all very much. GREAT discussion!
-----Original Message----- From: textbook-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:textbook-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Whitworth Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:46 PM To: textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: NPOV and NOR as a local or a global policies on
Wikibooks?
I didn't provide links to the pages I mentioned, because while they do
in
fact exist, they are not particularly well-maintained nor
aesthetically
pleasing. The most important method of organization, and the one that
is
best maintained, is the bookshelf system, to which there are ample
links.
The fact that you are confused about our name is misfortunately,
certainly.
However, your confusion is simply not enough impetus for our entire
project
and it's community of volunteer authors and editors to change
completely. A
little confusion is a small price to pay for the name recognition that
the
"Wikibooks" brand has acquired over the years. Despite your
complaints,
wikibooks is not named "Wikilibrary", and it does, in fact, only
contain
"books".
And Nike's "Just Do It" slogan doesn't mean anything to me, but that
doesn't
make it a less effective advertising tool. Wikisource contains
original
source documents, so the name seems pretty appropriate to me.
Trust me, if you hang around long enough, the name "Wikibooks" will
grow on
you too. But let me ask you this: When Amazon first started up, did
you send
them an email saying that their name was stupid and that they should
change
it?
It's not really our job to point visitors to other people's websites.
If you
do a search on google, and it doesn't return any results, it doesn't
say
"Sorry we couldn't help you, how about you try your search on MSN
instead?"
--Andrew Whitworth
_______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l