----- Original Message ----
From: Robert Scott Horning wrote:
<snip>
Jon wrote:
I would still appreciate more comments on:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Inclusion_criteria/Proposal
Some bits have changed since originally proposed, and these
amendments can be seen here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks%3AInclusion_criteria%2F…
I am looking to see it replace the current wording at WB:WIW
in around a month, provided the text can be agreed. (It isn't
really meant to be a fundamental change to what we do in
practice, even though it is a fundamentally different way of
expressing it.)
That, especially for Wikibooks, is an incredibly short period of time,
particularly since you havn't mentioned this on the Staff Lounge either.
You are talking about a major overhaul of a fundimental policy for the
entire project, and expecting that there will be little opposition to
even the idea of doing the overhaul? The "What is Wikibooks?" and its
predecessor "What Wikibooks is not." came from painful discussions (in
terms of arguments and verbal language) that have developed over the
courses of years, not months or even days. This is not something that
should be done quickly, and is something that should be very widely
advertised in terms of seeking input. Something like a global
announcement that is site-wide and displayed on every Wikibook page in
terms of user input, lasting at least six weeks for the comment period
alone. I am saying this due to my own experience with Wikibooks users,
and I would strongly object to a major overhaul of a policy page like
this (even if it is warrented) if it was changed and I never knew about it.
It is a good first step, but substantially more user comments should be
sought before it replaces a policy page like [[WB:WIW]].
I would add that I would expect the inclusion criteria
to be
read permissively rather than restrictively. Like every policy,
this is intended to be an aid to us developing Wikibooks
productively going forward, not a tight straitjacket - so the
phrase "worthy of study" is meant to mean that some people
consider a subject to be "worthy of study", not that the
whole world considers it to be so.
Kind regards
Jon
I want to add here that I think this is a good approach to go. Just
that we may have to be going a little slower than you are used to with
Wikipedia.
--
Robert Scott Horning
My response is as follows:
Just a note to say that I fully appreciate that how long it takes depends
on what comments/opposition there is to the rewrite. Few comments
and little opposition will see the page taken on board relatively quickly,
lots of comments and issues to iron out will, of course, mean that the
process is longer.
I'd also like to stress that I have every intention of giving this page
wider publicity before letting it go live - it's just that I am publicising it
slowly at present. This is because it is far better to have one person
saying constructively - "you haven't thought about this" or "we should
amend it like this" rather than six saying "oppose, because this isn't
dealt with well". I have noted it now both here on the mailing list and
on WB:WIW (including now the talk page of the "unstable" version).
I will leave it a while to allow for further constructive comments - and
then publicise it further.
Kind regards
Jon