A problem with wikibooks at the moment is that we don't have any formal statement of the wikibooks "mission statement" anywhere, and we also don't have any formal accepted definition of what precisely a "textbook" is, how one is identified, etc. If we want to measure textbooks against the standard that they must be used in an "accredited institution", that begs the question what we mean by "accredited". Accredited by whom, precisely? There are plenty of educational institutions that are "accredited" by all sorts of bogus agencies, and there are plenty of educational institutions that are not "accredited", but which do teach valuable, meaningful courses and lessons to students.
Consider for instance an "accredited institution" that teaches phrenology, astrology, etc. Such an institution would certainly be accredited by groups that advocate such topics, but neither the educational institution, nor the accrediting agency would be listed as "respected". Consider now the existance of community organizations that teach informal classes to children and the elderly. These organizations would certainly not be "accredited", but they can certainly teach valuable lessons to the respective students.
Jimbo: If you want us to use a specific defintion of "textbook" and "accredited institution", then you are going to have to mandate such definitions to us. At the moment we are picking our way through such matters, with varying degrees of success.
-- Andrew Whitworth "Whiteknight"
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion textbook-l@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia textbook discussion textbook-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 07:51:43 -0400
Piotr "Derbeth" Kubowicz wrote:
What do you think of http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Christianity/Living_as_a_Christian and
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Imamat_or_Successorship_After_the_Last_Prophet_...
I noticed there are more and more users who contribute to books that are made with strongly islamic point of view (we already have some texts about islam: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Islam), with nicks like "Truebeliever", "Believer" etc. I'm afraid that we might attract some zealots who see us as a good place to develop propaganda. Generally, I think that we should think how we should treat books about religious topics.
- NPOV is crucial. Textbooks are not advocacy. They are to instruct
and inform, not brainwash and convert (in either direction!).
- Wikibooks is for _textbooks_, not any random sort of nonfiction book.
One of the tests we should use is: "Does this book serve the specific textbok needs of any actual class offered at any actual accredited institution?" That will be a good way to cut out a lot of nonsense at the start.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l