Robert Scott Horning wrote:
snip
One other thing is that the political uphevals on Wikibooks need to end now. [[User:Jguk]] has suggested that all of the content removal and changes on Wikibooks havn't made that big of an impact on actual content development. If you look carefully at the usage graph, there has actually been a plateu or even a slight drop in Wikibooks usage over the past six months, and I do think that has a direct correlation to the political turmoil that occured within the Wikibooks community. Of course other plateus can be seen in the usage statistics, but it is something to think about. I do think the large-scale content removal is now a thing of the past as many of the buried issues have now been brought forward and largely dealt with.
About the only remaining "issue" left is to see what is going to happen with Wikiversity and if Wikiversity content is removed from Wikibooks, what kind of an impact that will have on remaining content on Wikibooks. Deciding what content is going to remain on Wikibooks is going to be a fun task to deal with.
I do not think the issue of what goes on Wikiversity vs. Wikibooks is going to be much of a problem.
Somebody has decided that Wikibooks should not have links to other online resources and has been busy deleting them so Wikibooks look like self constained hardcopy books. Personally I find this reduces the utility of the reduced Wikibook substantially. If others feel this way then we may end up with annotated and linked internet ebooks or study materials at Wikiversity while paper books in electronic form stay at Wikibooks. If this happens it should naturally segregate two different audiences with difference preferences for the style of online ebooks or study materials they find useful.
Your previous suggestion of forking the databases and letting the two different communities make their own decisions regarding what to delete and what to modify or integrate into the permanent databases seems rather efficient to me. I think it should minimize much of the confusion and debate unless we have crossover participants attempting to dictate policy percieved as beneficial to their native/preferred project but hostile or detrimental to the visited project.
regards, lazyquasar