I believe the consensus was that textbooks should be written from the "POV" of experts on the subject in question. So, for example, a textbook about evolution would not include a Kansas-style disclaimer because the creationism POV is largely irrelevant among experts on evolution. It might include a short segment about the controversy, but would probably tend to end with something like "There is virtually universal agreement among biologists that .."
Wikibooks could, in my opinion, be somewhat more expert-centric than pure NPOV would allow. In case of controversies, we should try to decide whether this is a legitimate controversy among experts on the subject, or whether we are dealing with "crackpot" theories which have no place in serious textbooks. On Wikipedia, we would always try to include the opposite POV, if only as a link to a separate page. On Wikibooks, we may sometimes have to decide to remove it entirely.
Regards,
Erik
Wikibooks is in no position to judge who is an expert on the issues. As long as they've been published, they're an expert. But that sounds somewhat impractical. The solution is to have different textbooks for different groups of experts emphasized, and have more of a focus that group. This can be a little bit POV towards that group (as I think) or completely NPOV, just focused (as most other people think), but this seems to be the general consensus of most people here. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com