Hi, Kathy,

The irony here is that materials that are created in a way that meshes with already-approved state curriculum frameworks are _also_ available to "a teacher, parent, school, district, or state can take it, leave it, or adapt it for their needs".

Cheers, Sanford

*************************************** Sanford Forte, Director California Open Source Texbook Project Palo Alto, CA sforte@opensourcetext.org 650-321-9152 (Office) 650-888-0077 (Mobile)

On May 11, 2007, at 11:16 AM, KH wrote:

Although I agree with you, Sanford, with wikibooks, a teacher, parent, school, district, or state can take it, leave it, or adapt it for their needs.

I'm looking for open curriculum or anything like that out on the web and there really isn't anything right now. The South African stuff is a structure but there isn't anything there for a teacher to use, let alone adapt.

-kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Sanford Forte [mailto:siforte@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:07 AM To: Wikimedia textbook discussion Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

The essential challenge is to get end product into the K-12 education channel, in a way that 1) meshes with the requirements set by state education departments to strictly adhere to curriculum frameworks; 2) devise effective means to inform the established K-12 education community that #1 has been completed (on a subject by subject basis); and, 3) establish a means to distribution of materials *in print* that is easy to access.

Content is decidedly _not_ the problem. The real problems are logistics and effective project management toward a goal of completing the above,

Cheers, Sanford

---

Sanford Forte, Director California Open Source Texbook Project Palo Alto, CA sforte@opensourcetext.org 650-321-9152 (Office) 650-888-0077 (Mobile)

On May 11, 2007, at 10:28 AM, KH wrote:

...

I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities. Actually, a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we are not supposed to do curriculum.

Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my info:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml

Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:

"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and it will take much longer."

Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities, etc. I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above, it is.

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- Florence Devouard wrote:

...

I, for one, think it is great to work on better defining the mission of Wikibooks. I have one question though, do you know if the definition worked upon is generally shared with other wikibooks people ? Are they other wikibooks that have worked on such a definition, and where the outcome differs widely from yours ?

ant

At last count 18 people supported it and 7 people objected to it. As others have already said, some disagree on limiting English Wikibooks to just textbooks, how much emphases on textbooks be be given, whether or not it should be a policy or guideline and some have concerns on the clarity of the proposal.

There is quite a difference from English Wikibooks' current version and the German version. Google's German to English translation of the German Wikibooks version: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F% 2Fde.wikibooks.org%2Fwiki %2FHilfe%3AWas_Wikibooks_ist&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

There have been previous proposals on English Wikibooks to redefine the current policy as well, before they were merged together: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=600961 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665481 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665488

that AFAIK, were abandoned before ever getting to the point of seeking input from the community to accept or reject them.

--darklama

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

Kathy, At long week's end, we are all a bit muddled. :) That said, my point is that _any_ textbook written to a state curriculum standard would have the same open access for revision, by whomever wished to do so. The advantage is creating a book that strictly adheres to a state curriculum standard (pick a large state, like California, Texas, Florida, or New York) is that it will pass muster in that one state, and inspire similar projects by others who want to write for other states.

The SRA materials are wonderful, but not even one state education curriculum committee (most states have these) will pass them through peer review for serious consideration by districts as _required_ books.

Andrew's point is well-taken, but the assumption that Wikibooks would have to do different materials for every state is unfounded. All we need do is construct _one_ book that follows the standard, as a placeholder and proof of concept. Once that's done, there would be a definite viral effect in the market, because although the K-12 education community is massive, word travels fast.

Currently, one fo the weaknesses of Wikibooks in regard to K-12 textbook production is lack of a seamless way to get all WYSIWYG to print, and garnering a focus on one project, to prove it can be done.

In fact, _most_ of the hard work in curriculum construction has been done by the state's curriculum standards committees. Go to my website www.opensourcetext.org and link to the California State standards, just to get an idea about how comprehensive those standards are. byw, I have migrated the purpose of COSTP to one where I am helping to spread the word about the necessary strategic and tactical actions that are necessary to get a truly open and well-distributed K-12 textbook databank accomplished. We're all working toward the same goal[

Cheers, Sanford

*************************************** Sanford Forte, Director California Open Source Texbook Project Palo Alto, CA sforte@opensourcetext.org 650-321-9152 (Office) 650-888-0077 (Mobile)

On May 11, 2007, at 11:24 AM, KH wrote:

Sorry Sanford, I think too much coffee has muddled my brain. I'm not sure what you mean but I'm very, very interested in getting your point.

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Sanford Forte [mailto:siforte@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:21 AM To: Wikimedia textbook discussion Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

Hi, Kathy,

The irony here is that materials that are created in a way that meshes with already-approved state curriculum frameworks are _also_ available to "a teacher, parent, school, district, or state can take it, leave it, or adapt it for their needs".

Cheers, Sanford

---

Sanford Forte, Director California Open Source Texbook Project Palo Alto, CA sforte@opensourcetext.org 650-321-9152 (Office) 650-888-0077 (Mobile)

On May 11, 2007, at 11:16 AM, KH wrote:

...

Although I agree with you, Sanford, with wikibooks, a teacher, parent, school, district, or state can take it, leave it, or adapt it for their needs.

I'm looking for open curriculum or anything like that out on the web and there really isn't anything right now. The South African stuff is a structure but there isn't anything there for a teacher to use, let alone adapt.

-kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Sanford Forte [mailto:siforte@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:07 AM To: Wikimedia textbook discussion Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

The essential challenge is to get end product into the K-12 education channel, in a way that 1) meshes with the requirements set by state education departments to strictly adhere to curriculum frameworks; 2) devise effective means to inform the established K-12 education community that #1 has been completed (on a subject by subject basis); and, 3) establish a means to distribution of materials *in print* that is easy to access.

Content is decidedly _not_ the problem. The real problems are logistics and effective project management toward a goal of completing the above,

Cheers, Sanford

---

Sanford Forte, Director California Open Source Texbook Project Palo Alto, CA sforte@opensourcetext.org 650-321-9152 (Office) 650-888-0077 (Mobile)

On May 11, 2007, at 10:28 AM, KH wrote:

...

I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities. Actually, a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we are not supposed to do curriculum.

Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my info:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml

Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:

"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and it will take much longer."

Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities, etc. I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above, it is.

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- Florence Devouard wrote:

...

I, for one, think it is great to work on better defining the mission of Wikibooks. I have one question though, do you know if the definition worked upon is generally shared with other wikibooks people ? Are they other wikibooks that have worked on such a definition, and where the outcome differs widely from yours ?

ant

At last count 18 people supported it and 7 people objected to it. As others have already said, some disagree on limiting English Wikibooks to just textbooks, how much emphases on textbooks be be given, whether or not it should be a policy or guideline and some have concerns on the clarity of the proposal.

There is quite a difference from English Wikibooks' current version and the German version. Google's German to English translation of the German Wikibooks version: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F% 2Fde.wikibooks.org%2Fwiki %2FHilfe%3AWas_Wikibooks_ist&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

There have been previous proposals on English Wikibooks to redefine the current policy as well, before they were merged together: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=600961 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665481 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665488

that AFAIK, were abandoned before ever getting to the point of seeking input from the community to accept or reject them.

--darklama

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

Andrew's point is well-taken, but the assumption that Wikibooks would have to do different materials for every state is unfounded. All we need do is construct _one_ book that follows the standard, as a placeholder and proof of concept. Once that's done, there would be a definite viral effect in the market, because although the K-12 education community is massive, word travels fast.

I'm not saying that we need to write a million separate books, just making sure that the few books we do have meet a wide range of curricula. For the most part, the curricula of most states is very similar on various issues, so that wouldnt be a problem anyway. If we picked a large state such as california and wrote our books to those standards, modification to fit other curricula would be simple indeed.

I still think that we lack the necessary manpower. However, if we advertised the fact that we were writing open-content textbooks to a particular standard, i'm sure we could gather a few volunteers and even a little sponsorship.

If we are talking about texts that will be used by schools and school students, we really need to consider things like stable versions, so that the text of a book doesnt change drastically (and isnt open to vandalism) in the middle of a school term. Whether this requires liberal use of administrative page protection, or even a modification to the software to prevent users from making drastic changes is open to some debate.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr...

Dear Community,

Sorry for joining in this discussion so late. There are a couple of issues in this recent discussion that have come up before but I wasn't able to devote much time to Wikibooks at the time.

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:16:12PM -0600, Robert Horning wrote:

...

Currently, one fo the weaknesses of Wikibooks in regard to K-12 textbook production is lack of a seamless way to get all WYSIWYG to print, and garnering a focus on one project, to prove it can be done.

I would have to agree that this is a weakness of Wikibooks, even though some efforts along those lines have been done using PDF files to try and make up for some of the short comings of the wiki markup syntax. Part of the problem here is that HTML was never intended to be a WYSIWYG markup language, and the Wiki environment suffers from the same shortcomings in this regard.

I have to admit that I don't quite understand the above use of the term WYSIWYG; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG I was under the impression that WYSIWYG is a property of the software, not the markup language. You can type HTML markup with a text editor, or use a WYSIWYG editor to create it from your What-You-See layout.

HTML, being a markup language, defines the structure of the document. Definitions of how the document was supposed to display (colour, fonts, positioning etc.) crept in over time for the lack of a better alternative.

CSS changed that. The W3C split the markup and style up into (X)HTML and CSS, respectively. The latter defines how the structured elements are to be displayed. With CSS, one can control what a document is supposed to display as. As long as users have a CSS compliant browser, you can be confident that What-You've-Got-Is-What-They-See.

CSS supports media specific style-sheets http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html that allows for a different stylesheet to be used for printing (and a number of other ones). Opera and Firefox both support these. I don't think IE6 does and have no idea about IE7.

Instead of going through too much pain developing a tool to convert MW-markup into LaTeX, why don't we just see if modifying the printing style-sheet is sufficient for our needs?

Sincerely, Martin Swift

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:22:09AM -0400, Andrew Whitworth wrote:

...

I have to admit that I don't quite understand the above use of the term WYSIWYG; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG I was under the impression that WYSIWYG is a property of the software, not the markup language. You can type HTML markup with a text editor, or use a WYSIWYG editor to create it from your What-You-See layout.

By WYSIWYG, people mean that HTML is typically relative and the layout of a webpage may be different depending on a number of factors.

But even this quality (and I'd discourage usage of WYSIWYG to describe it) isn't specific to HTML in that it applies to most markup languages. LaTeX for instance requires no declaration of page size.

In that sense both markup languages simply describe the structure of documents, leave styling to stylesheets/document-classes and rendering to user-agents/typsetting-software.

This, proponents argue, is one of the great advantages of markup over WYSIWYG editors.

To a small degree, webpages will render different browsers, but even in the same browser the webpage will render differently when the browser is resized, etc.

Setting the negligeable differences between W3C recommendation compliant user agents aside; most substantial differences in rendering (such as flow around blocks depending on window and font sizes) are actually features of multiple-media-compatible markup, not bugs.

For a great example of "what you see is not what you get", try to print a webpage, and compare the printout to what you see on your computer screen: The page needs to be re-rendered to fit onto a piece of paper (especially if you print in "portrait", not "landscape").

Print preview.

Different media calls for different displaying. While this may seem like a disadvantage, markup languages such as HTML actually use this to their great advantage. By seperating content and style, you can prepare a document for several media types with minimal redundancy.

I've printed with both Opera and Firefox. Printouts from both match their print preview renderings.

...

Instead of going through too much pain developing a tool to convert MW-markup into LaTeX, why don't we just see if modifying the printing style-sheet is sufficient for our needs?

That's the approach that i've been taking, personally. I've done some work on some printing templates that help to format a printed book, but don't look so good on the screen

Do these templates have styles or classes defined in stylesheets?

By putting the style declarations in the print media stylesheet, on-screen rendering won't take them into account.

(how do you render a page break on the computer screen?).

The screen is only one page; so you don't. This is why different media calls for different stylesheets.

I think that there is alot that we could do straight from the HTML, if we avoid things that don't work when printed, and if we are willing to do the work to implement the proper styles for printing.

What, exactly, are the displaying problems that need to be addressed?

I just printed http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Theory/Energy_Storage_Elements to a file with Opera and it looked pretty good. I can send it to you or put it up online if you'd like to have a look at my copy.

Cheers, Martin

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:00:03PM -0400, Andrew Whitworth wrote:

...

Print preview.

Different media calls for different displaying. While this may seem like a disadvantage, markup languages such as HTML actually use this to their great advantage. By seperating content and style, you can prepare a document for several media types with minimal redundancy.

I was not ignoring print preview, just pointing out the differences between how a webpage looks when displayed regularly in a browser, and when it is printed to paper.

I fear we may be discussing slightly different topics. What I am trying to point out is that these differences are a good thing. We should actively use this great adaptability of markup to different media to our advantage.

I've received many complaints in my time about how great a page looks in the browser, and how trashy it looks when printed. Even if the printed copy looks alright, it is frequently "not what I expected" because the page looks different on different display media.

In that case, rather than waste Wikibookians' valuable time and efforts creating and maintaining PDF versions, perhaps we could simply apologise to these users and point out how they can preview what the printed media will look like.

If they find their printouts trashy, this can be remedied using currently available markup or by politely encouraging them to try a CSS capable browser to make use of the Wikibooks print-stylesheet.

...

...

(how do you render a page break on the computer screen?).

The screen is only one page; so you don't. This is why different media calls for different stylesheets.

It was a rhetorical question.

I know. A rhetorical question generally makes its point by implying an answer. This is its weakness.

My impression from the context was that the answer you were suggesting was "you can't", thus implying that this was a problem. I, however, don't see this as a problem at all, indicated by my alternate answer "you don't".

I probably should have left it at that, but went on to pad it with an explanation, fearing that it would be misunderstood. Guess that didn't work so well.

You cannot sensically render a page break in the browser, but a printed book will require page breaks. This means that the formatting and styles for the print version of the book needs to be different from the in-browser version, even if only though the addition of page breaks and the like.

I agree with you fully. The solution, I argue, lies with CSS. The markup can contain elements that are interpreted differently depending on which stylesheet is used. Elements can trigger page breaks when rendered with the print stylesheet but do nothing otherwise.

A common example is people who use object widths incorrectly. [...] It's not an underlying problem with the software or the rendering or anything, it's a problem with authors who don't take printed media into account when they design a page.

Then, the first step might be to create a few typesetting guidelines; a few points with what to be aware of, what tools are out there, and how to ensure the document renders properly on different media.

I'd be willing to create that sort of document with the help of someone who has more knowledge of the issues that have come up in the past (in the very least to ensure that the document covers the essentials and doesn't go off on needless rants).

Because it's author error, it's not a problem with all books, and I would like to think I've avoided in when I authored the pages in the [[Circuit Theory]] book.

I'd say you have.

Cheers, Martin Swift

When it comes to writing books for a standardized curriculum, it's more difficult. Wikibooks just doesnt have the man power to write a new book tailor-made for each different jurisdiction. We've been brainstorming ideas to find a way to write a single book, and taking information piece-wise to create a book for a particular curriculum. What we do not have are:

1) Specifications of various curriculums, which we could attempt to satisfy 2) people willing and able to write the necessary material 3) A mechanism to really advertise our books, and compete in the marketplace with established commercial book vendors

This isn't to say that the situation is hopeless, because we are making progress every day. However, there is alot of work left to be done before we can market wikibooks as being a viable alternative to traditional commercial printed textbooks.

With US teachers going on vacation for the summer, perhaps we would be able to attract some of them to help author new material? I don't know how we would attract them, however.

--Andrew Whitworth

From: Sanford Forte siforte@ix.netcom.com Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia textbook discussion textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:06:42 -0700

The essential challenge is to get end product into the K-12 education channel, in a way that 1) meshes with the requirements set by state education departments to strictly adhere to curriculum frameworks; 2) devise effective means to inform the established K-12 education community that #1 has been completed (on a subject by subject basis); and, 3) establish a means to distribution of materials *in print* that is easy to access.

Content is decidedly _not_ the problem. The real problems are logistics and effective project management toward a goal of completing the above,

Cheers, Sanford

---

Sanford Forte, Director California Open Source Texbook Project Palo Alto, CA sforte@opensourcetext.org 650-321-9152 (Office) 650-888-0077 (Mobile)

On May 11, 2007, at 10:28 AM, KH wrote:

...

I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities. Actually, a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we are not supposed to do curriculum.

Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my info:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml

Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:

"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and it will take much longer."

Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities, etc. I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above, it is.

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- Florence Devouard wrote:

...

I, for one, think it is great to work on better defining the mission of Wikibooks. I have one question though, do you know if the definition worked upon is generally shared with other wikibooks people ? Are they other wikibooks that have worked on such a definition, and where the outcome differs widely from yours ?

ant

At last count 18 people supported it and 7 people objected to it. As others have already said, some disagree on limiting English Wikibooks to just textbooks, how much emphases on textbooks be be given, whether or not it should be a policy or guideline and some have concerns on the clarity of the proposal.

There is quite a difference from English Wikibooks' current version and the German version. Google's German to English translation of the German Wikibooks version: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F% 2Fde.wikibooks.org%2Fwiki %2FHilfe%3AWas_Wikibooks_ist&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

There have been previous proposals on English Wikibooks to redefine the current policy as well, before they were merged together: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=600961 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665481 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665488

that AFAIK, were abandoned before ever getting to the point of seeking input from the community to accept or reject them.

--darklama

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr...

My last post, I'm not kidding.

From Mr. Whitworth:

What we do not have are:

1) Specifications of various curriculums, which we could attempt to satisfy

...

Take one state at a time. A group of interested people in that state

will get together to develop against their own state standards (which move). Other states can use that to help them develop their own curriculum so they don't have to start from scratch.

2) people willing and able to write the necessary material

...

I'm working on finding interested grad students in my state. I hope to

start this July. If I were to get my tush in gear, I would have a few chapters of a curriculum finished in order to have something to present and sell to professors.

3) A mechanism to really advertise our books, and compete in the marketplace with established commercial book vendors

...

If you build it they will come? I really think that as texts and

curriculum go up and schools (k-12) are more and more financially squeezed, they will HAVE to at least consider freely available, well designed curriculum.

Added by Kathy: 4) The capitalist mentality that whatever I design must be made into money

...

That is why wikibooks, wikipedia, wikimedia is the avenue. They are

trying to change the old mindset that there is more to information sharing than selling it. Knowledge should be free.

-kathy -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Whitworth [mailto:wknight8111@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:22 AM To: textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

When it comes to writing books for a standardized curriculum, it's more difficult. Wikibooks just doesnt have the man power to write a new book tailor-made for each different jurisdiction. We've been brainstorming ideas to find a way to write a single book, and taking information piece-wise to create a book for a particular curriculum. What we do not have are:

1) Specifications of various curriculums, which we could attempt to satisfy 2) people willing and able to write the necessary material 3) A mechanism to really advertise our books, and compete in the marketplace with established commercial book vendors

This isn't to say that the situation is hopeless, because we are making progress every day. However, there is alot of work left to be done before we can market wikibooks as being a viable alternative to traditional commercial printed textbooks.

With US teachers going on vacation for the summer, perhaps we would be able to attract some of them to help author new material? I don't know how we would attract them, however.

--Andrew Whitworth

From: Sanford Forte siforte@ix.netcom.com Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia textbook discussion textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:06:42 -0700

The essential challenge is to get end product into the K-12 education channel, in a way that 1) meshes with the requirements set by state education departments to strictly adhere to curriculum frameworks; 2) devise effective means to inform the established K-12 education community that #1 has been completed (on a subject by subject basis); and, 3) establish a means to distribution of materials *in print* that is easy to access.

Content is decidedly _not_ the problem. The real problems are logistics and effective project management toward a goal of completing the above,

Cheers, Sanford

---

Sanford Forte, Director California Open Source Texbook Project Palo Alto, CA sforte@opensourcetext.org 650-321-9152 (Office) 650-888-0077 (Mobile)

On May 11, 2007, at 10:28 AM, KH wrote:

...

I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities. Actually, a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we are not supposed to do curriculum.

Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my info:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml

Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:

"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and it will take much longer."

Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities, etc. I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above, it is.

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- Florence Devouard wrote:

...

I, for one, think it is great to work on better defining the mission of Wikibooks. I have one question though, do you know if the definition worked upon is generally shared with other wikibooks people ? Are they other wikibooks that have worked on such a definition, and where the outcome differs widely from yours ?

ant

At last count 18 people supported it and 7 people objected to it. As others have already said, some disagree on limiting English Wikibooks to just textbooks, how much emphases on textbooks be be given, whether or not it should be a policy or guideline and some have concerns on the clarity of the proposal.

There is quite a difference from English Wikibooks' current version and the German version. Google's German to English translation of the German Wikibooks version: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F% 2Fde.wikibooks.org%2Fwiki %2FHilfe%3AWas_Wikibooks_ist&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

There have been previous proposals on English Wikibooks to redefine the current policy as well, before they were merged together: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=600961 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665481 http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab le&oldid=665488

that AFAIK, were abandoned before ever getting to the point of seeking input from the community to accept or reject them.

--darklama

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_________________________________________________________________ PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr... n_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

The wikijunior stuff is like a zoobooks online. I wouldn't consider it "curriculum". It could be used to enhance curriculum.

If the quote I gave from Mr. Wales is no longer valid, then someone should go out and update at least Lessig's website to reflect that. It sure mislead me!

This: "The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level." - Jimbo Wales

Is certainly different than this: "However, if we define a textbook as 'an instructional book to accompany a course of learning', we really have a lot of latitude." - Whitworth

Again, if wikibooks does not include curriculum, then it would be helpful if Mr. Wales wrote some sort of article to redefine, restate, or retract what he said.

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Whitworth [mailto:wknight8111@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:15 AM To: textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and

activities.

Actually, a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we are not supposed to do curriculum.

We do include books for younger children, and the youngest children (birth through age 12) are the target audience of wikijunior. Certainly the concept of a "textbook" is different when we are talking about kindergartners. However, if we define a textbook as "an instructional book to accompany a course of learning", we really have a lot of latitude.

Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my info:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml

Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:

Never seen that blog before, I'll have to read it.

"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and it will take much longer."

Another project that we work closely with is Wikiversity, which creates curricula. A wikiversity course can use a Wikibook as an accompaniment. While wikibooks contains books, wikiversity can contain syllabi, tests and quizes, slides and handouts, reading assignments, etc. Combined, the two projects can create a complete educational experiance for learners of all ages.

Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities, etc. I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above, it is.

Textbooks for the curriculum definitely belong on wikibooks, it's a great collaborative place to host books. For additional materials, Wikiversity is a great place for those. It can be a little inconvenient to have to move between the two websites, but they have the same software, and linking one to the other is very easy.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr... n_HM_mini_2G_0507

-----Original Message----- From: textbook-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:textbook-l- bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of KH Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 2:22 PM To: 'Wikimedia textbook discussion' Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

The wikijunior stuff is like a zoobooks online. I wouldn't consider it "curriculum". It could be used to enhance curriculum.

If the quote I gave from Mr. Wales is no longer valid, then someone should go out and update at least Lessig's website to reflect that. It sure mislead me!

This: "The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level." - Jimbo Wales

Is certainly different than this: "However, if we define a textbook as 'an instructional book to accompany a course of learning', we really have a lot of latitude." - Whitworth

Again, if wikibooks does not include curriculum, then it would be helpful if Mr. Wales wrote some sort of article to redefine, restate, or retract what he said.

-Kathy

Please, continue the conversation. I'm just tired of my email filter getting confused with each of this list's email and took [Foundation-l] out of the subject line.

Cary Bass

Kathy,

Thank you for your passion! You, like Sanford, are exactly the type of person that I have dreamed about getting involved in the Wikibooks world.

When Wikibooks was created, it was intended (by me) to be a home to the creation of free, open-content textbooks and other learning materials. Curriculum is a natural extension of that.

Some time later, a sister site called Wikiversity was created, which is the home to pretty much everything else related to teaching and education that is not textbooks.

Both sites are housed under the Wikimedia umbrella that was started by Jimmy Wales. So Jimmy's overall goal is to facilitate the creation of those complete curricula and textbooks for all levels in all languages. And to speak for him, the plan is organized this way:

Textbooks are developed and housed on Wikibooks ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page ). Curricula and other learning materials, including multimedia, are to be developed and hosted on the Wikiversity site ( http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Main_Page ).

Thank you again for your zeal and please let me know if I can help clear up any other questions.

Karl Wick, Wikibooks co-founder

On 5/11/07, KH kathy@teachernotes.org wrote:

I agree, but I sure wish Jimbo would then redefine what he meant because his blog post (I believe it is his as he was filling in for Lessig) and/or presentation is what lead me to wikibooks.org. Just any old person saying that wouldn't hold water with me but one of the founders? If I was led to the understanding, there might be others.

Again, Mr. Wales needs to intervene and either denounce what he said/wrote or help us with the issue.

-kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Florence Devouard [mailto:Anthere9@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:45 PM To: textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

KH wrote:

...

I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities. Actually, a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we are not supposed to do curriculum.

Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my

info:

...

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml

Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:

"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and it will take much longer."

Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities,

etc.

...

I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above, it is.

-Kathy

Hmmm This looks like one of the 10 points of his presentation last year at Wikimania (10 things to become free). I am not sure it is a blog afterwards, or actually the transcript of his presentation. You should be able to find a video of it somewhere on the wikimania 2006 site (or somewhere else...)

This said, wikibooks was created long before than presentation. I certainly do not think a presentation done in 2006 define the goal of a project created 2 years earlier roughly.

Ant

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

OK. That pretty much answered my question.

Now if they cold only explain why the cool new logo with Wikimedia colors was not allowed .... ;)

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Karl Wick [mailto:karlwick@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:39 PM To: Wikimedia textbook discussion Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

Kathy,

Thank you for your passion! You, like Sanford, are exactly the type of person that I have dreamed about getting involved in the Wikibooks world.

When Wikibooks was created, it was intended (by me) to be a home to the creation of free, open-content textbooks and other learning materials. Curriculum is a natural extension of that.

Some time later, a sister site called Wikiversity was created, which is the home to pretty much everything else related to teaching and education that is not textbooks.

Both sites are housed under the Wikimedia umbrella that was started by Jimmy Wales. So Jimmy's overall goal is to facilitate the creation of those complete curricula and textbooks for all levels in all languages. And to speak for him, the plan is organized this way:

Textbooks are developed and housed on Wikibooks ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page ). Curricula and other learning materials, including multimedia, are to be developed and hosted on the Wikiversity site ( http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Main_Page ).

Thank you again for your zeal and please let me know if I can help clear up any other questions.

Karl Wick, Wikibooks co-founder

On 5/11/07, KH kathy@teachernotes.org wrote:

I agree, but I sure wish Jimbo would then redefine what he meant because his blog post (I believe it is his as he was filling in for Lessig) and/or presentation is what lead me to wikibooks.org. Just any old person saying that wouldn't hold water with me but one of the founders? If I was led to the understanding, there might be others.

Again, Mr. Wales needs to intervene and either denounce what he said/wrote or help us with the issue.

-kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Florence Devouard [mailto:Anthere9@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:45 PM To: textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

KH wrote:

...

I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the "textbook" is really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities. Actually, a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we are not supposed to do curriculum.

Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got my

info:

...

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml

Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:

"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and it will take much longer."

Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities,

etc.

...

I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website listed above, it is.

-Kathy

Hmmm This looks like one of the 10 points of his presentation last year at Wikimania (10 things to become free). I am not sure it is a blog afterwards, or actually the transcript of his presentation. You should be able to find a video of it somewhere on the wikimania 2006 site (or somewhere else...)

This said, wikibooks was created long before than presentation. I certainly do not think a presentation done in 2006 define the goal of a project created 2 years earlier roughly.

Ant

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---

Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

Kathy Harris wrote:

...

OK. That pretty much answered my question.

Now if they cold only explain why the cool new logo with Wikimedia

colors

...

was not allowed .... ;)

-Kathy

Since we are in branding discussion...

I am not sure who is "they", but I can give it a try

It was perceived that we should give a real identity to each project logo, not make the logo a derivative either of Wikipedia, or of Wikimedia Foundation. If I remember well, the logo suggested used WMF colors. And we asked that this be avoided.

I presume this is the right page:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logo

See at the bottom of the page.

Ant

Anthere, so long as it seems we have your attention, I was wondering what exactly was the status of the new logo? I'm pretty convinced that a shiny new logo would be a great way to kickstart wikibooks' image. I know all wikibookians won't agree with me on that point, however.

Who has the final say in the logo? can each wikibooks project select a logo individually, or do all wikibooks projects have to have the same logo? What I mean to ask is, can the en.wikibooks community vote on the issue themselves, or do we have to have a "global" discussion on meta only?

I would like to get the discussion going again on logo discussion, because i feel like it's really been put on the back burner.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr...

I think it would be a damage to Wikibooks brand when different language editions would introduce different logos. We have to make decision together.

I would agree to that, in theory. I disagree in general because the various language projects have little interaction, have different user bases (in general), and have different target markets. If the different projects have different logos, few people will notice. The most important thing is the logo that appears at www.wikibooks.org.

Looking at Wiktionary case, which has similar logo vote at the same time as us, they seem to be in similar situation. The logo has been chosen but no one is eager to replace the old one. My personal view is that both communities - Wiktionary's and Wikibooks' - have decided to simply ignore results of the vote as they feel this hasn't been their vote. People having nothing to do with these projects were leading discussion on new logo and voted for it.

I'm eager to replace the old one, we all should be. It's not that we are ignoring the vote, because at the end of the day it isn't really our decision: The change will be implemented by the developers or whoever does it, whether our community really wants it or not. The old logo is trash, and I think we should all be jumping at the opportunity to replace it.

Personally I find chosen logo a peace of rubbish, complete amateurish work and a complete mistake, having nothing to do with a professional logo. It looks like it was drawn by a child with crayons. If you compare it with logos of Commons, Wikipedia or Wikisource, it becomes clear that new logo does not represent the same level; it's in kindergarten of logo making.

I disagree with this entirely, the new logo is sleek and professional. The old logo was drawn with the crayons, and drawn without too much thought about the project or it's possibilities. Is it the absolute best logo we could ever have? maybe not. Is it better then the current logo? absolutely.

Beyond my personal looks: it's not fair to change rules during the game. People have chosen certain design: with Wikimedia colours. After changing colour version, the logo became another design; thus, the vote should start again. Currently the status quo shows: practically no one is interested in introducing new logo. New logo is defunct, has not gain acceptance and the vote should start again. With more serious candidates.

The status quo only shows that people are confused. You are right, the rules of the vote weren't followed to the letter and there is a good reason why they were not followed (because the WMF wanted us to change the colors). People were confused, nobody provided clarification, and we didnt move to the next stage because we dont know what stage to go to next. That's why I'm asking Anthere about this now, because i feel that she can provide that clarification and get the process moving again.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr...

I suppose this was meant to be the new voting page. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logo_Vote_Page

If so, it looks like indeed, the process is stopped...

Last decision as far as I can remember was that it would be best that projects avoid always picking up logos using the colors of the Foundation.

Now... I can not help reflect on the discussions of the past few days about brands. Erik suggested that we could move toward a centralization of names, turned around Wikipedia (eg, Wikipedia books). Most reactions seem to oppose. At the same time, some argue that proposing a name and logo concept clearly refering to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia, could strengthen the brand.

I find utterly interesting to see much rejection of the idea of somehow a common name... whilst at the same time, all recent logos proposed were more or less derivative of Wikipedia (eg Wiktionary) or Wikimedia (eg Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Incubator).

Whether we argue that one solution is best or not good for public perception, it is interesting to see that those who created and voted logos, naturally chose to "look" similar to WMF logo. And that saying "please change the colors" basically put a stop to any decision.

I wonder if we might not think about it entirely again...

Ant

Kathy Harris wrote:

Please, can we at least go back and start the voting process again? A new logo would be very nice.

-Kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Whitworth [mailto:wknight8111@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 4:55 PM To: textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Logo discussion

...

I think it would be a damage to Wikibooks brand when different language editions would introduce different logos. We have to make decision together.

I would agree to that, in theory. I disagree in general because the various language projects have little interaction, have different user bases (in general), and have different target markets. If the different projects have different logos, few people will notice. The most important thing is the logo that appears at www.wikibooks.org.

...

Looking at Wiktionary case, which has similar logo vote at the same time as

...

us, they seem to be in similar situation. The logo has been chosen but no one is eager to replace the old one. My personal view is that both communities - Wiktionary's and Wikibooks' - have decided to simply ignore results of the vote as they feel this hasn't been their vote. People having

...

nothing to do with these projects were leading discussion on new logo and voted for it.

I'm eager to replace the old one, we all should be. It's not that we are ignoring the vote, because at the end of the day it isn't really our decision: The change will be implemented by the developers or whoever does it, whether our community really wants it or not. The old logo is trash, and

I think we should all be jumping at the opportunity to replace it.

...

Personally I find chosen logo a peace of rubbish, complete amateurish work and a complete mistake, having nothing to do with a professional logo. It looks like it was drawn by a child with crayons. If you compare it with logos of Commons, Wikipedia or Wikisource, it becomes clear that new logo does not represent the same level; it's in kindergarten of logo making.

I disagree with this entirely, the new logo is sleek and professional. The old logo was drawn with the crayons, and drawn without too much thought about the project or it's possibilities. Is it the absolute best logo we could ever have? maybe not. Is it better then the current logo? absolutely.

...

Beyond my personal looks: it's not fair to change rules during the game. People have chosen certain design: with Wikimedia colours. After changing colour version, the logo became another design; thus, the vote should start

...

again. Currently the status quo shows: practically no one is interested in introducing new logo. New logo is defunct, has not gain acceptance and the vote should start again. With more serious candidates.

The status quo only shows that people are confused. You are right, the rules

of the vote weren't followed to the letter and there is a good reason why they were not followed (because the WMF wanted us to change the colors). People were confused, nobody provided clarification, and we didnt move to the next stage because we dont know what stage to go to next. That's why I'm

asking Anthere about this now, because i feel that she can provide that clarification and get the process moving again.

--Andrew Whitworth

---

More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr... n_HM_mini_2G_0507

On 5/17/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote: Florence had written:

...

Whether we argue that one solution is best or not good for public perception, it is interesting to see that those who created and voted logos, naturally chose to "look" similar to WMF logo. And that saying "please change the colors" basically put a stop to any decision.

I would tend to see a different cause and effect pattern to this. The logo, when it was voted on originally, had been created by the artist using WMF colors. If it had been known at the beginning that the WMF colors were unacceptable, the artist would not have chosen those colors for his design, the voting process would have proceeded as was stated in the "rules" of the discussion, and we would have a logo right now. If the discussion has stalled, It's not because people are trying to make a logo that is a derivative of the WMF logo, it's because the process has hit a bump and nobody stepped up to clarify what to do next. This is precisely why I want to talk to you, Anthere, on this mailing list about this subject: because you are an authority figure who could step in and say "this is what we do now", even if that something is as simple as another round of votes.

Logos have always been a matter for each project to sort out, so it's not up to Florence to wave a magic wand over or kickstart this discussion - it's up to the community.

Funnily enough, in Wikiversity's case, we voted and decided on a logo - *then* it was suggested that it wasn't a good idea to have WMF logos all or mostly the same colour (i.e. blue), and it was the subsequent colour *differentiation* phase which was never really resolved.

What I think Florence is saying is that perhaps we should be thinking about project logos/taglines/names as a joined-up Wikimedia-wide discussion - in contrast to what has been done before. However, there should be nothing stopping the Wikibooks community from reviving the unresolved vote (if that's how the community feel about it), and perhaps, in the process, think through some of the issues that have been raised during this "branding" discussion that the Wikibooks community find compelling for them, and their place within the Wikimedia movement.

Cormac

Andrew Whitworth wrote:

...

What I think Florence is saying is that perhaps we should be thinking about project logos/taglines/names as a joined-up Wikimedia-wide discussion - in contrast to what has been done before. However, there should be nothing stopping the Wikibooks community from reviving the unresolved vote (if that's how the community feel about it), and perhaps, in the process, think through some of the issues that have been raised during this "branding" discussion that the Wikibooks community find compelling for them, and their place within the Wikimedia movement.

What wikibooks doesnt have is a suitable public image, in part I would say because of it's old logo. I had heard a suggestion on foundation-l about creating a common tag-line for all the projects, but perhaps Wikibooks needs a new slogan as well as a shiny new logo. Wikibooks is never going to reach it's potential as a great project with a second-rate logo and no help from the WMF.

--Andrew Whitworth

I disagree that the logo is necessarily a limiting factor on the development and progression of Wikibooks as a project, but I would have to agree that the current logo is clearly dated and does need to be updated to something a little more polished beyond the rough idea that Wikibookians came up with nearly four years ago. And the current "slogan" is also in dire need of improvement.

What it really needs right now is for somebody to take on this issue and set up the "voting" pages somewhere neutral that would also strongly involve Wikibookians on all of the various language editions of Wikibooks, not just en.wikibooks. Unfortunately I don't seem to have the drive to get this accomplished at the moment, and it is unfortunate that the individuals who were pushing for the development of a new Wikibooks logo ran out of steam right before it was necessary for projects to actually accept the suggested logo.

Rather than trying to get WMF involvement in the logo selection, we should try to find out what went wrong with the logo selection process and try to fix those problems for the next round, if we want to go there. Logo guidelines would be recommended, including copyright licensing requirements and other such foundation policies related to logos. This kind of help from Florance and WMF board members would be useful, although Meta does list this information if you want to dig for it. I don't understand the push to have projects use color schemes completely different from the WMF logo, as I think it should actually be encouraged for branding purposes, but that is not my call to make here. If this is a requirement (to use a different color scheme), we should stick with it.

One of the major complaints regarding the logo selection process on the last round was that the active Wikibookians involved with content development were largely not involved with the logo selection on Meta. As a result, reception of the logo met with luke-warm recognition when the issue was even brought up for use to out right hostility. If you can't convince those who are going to be using the logo that it should be used, I don't see what the point of the Logo selection process really means.

I don't think it was a lack of "advertising" that Wikibooks users weren't involved with the logo selection, although that certainly is something that perhaps could be improved including the use of a site notice (aka the text usually used to advertise fundraisers and foundation policies). And to make it obvious to nearly everybody using Wikibooks that a logo selection is in progress.

Another huge area of concern was the idea that those making the selection of the logo weren't Wikibookians but rather Meta regulars or even Wikipedians who have never used Wikibooks except with a casual glance through some of the pages linked off of the front page. This was even discussed on Meta to an extent, with a significant number of individuals defending the inclusion of a large number of non-Wikibookians in the process. I don't have a strong opinion on restricting users on votes for something like this, but any selection process that ignores those using the logo is also not going to achieve the desired result: that the logo will actually be used! I would like to hear from others on this list in regards to this point, and is it at least possible that potential logos weren't selected because a block of individuals indifferent to Wikibooks were involved in its selection?

Something else that perhaps ought to be looked at is the selection process of the logo itself. A multi-round voting process seems to put off many individuals except for those who want to get involved, as that only encourages those who want to be involved with the political aspect of decisions like this. Several alternate voting suggestions were made as well to help try to fix this process, and this is something that perhaps ought to be explored in more depth. I am talking weighted voting, instant run-off voting, or something else that can narrow down a large field of candidates to just a single selection in just one round of voting, and allow room for a compromise selection instead of "the best of the worst".

Perhaps even other ideas like a logo selection committee or even something more off the wall could be considered instead.... although I do think a fiat decision by the WMF board would be a very bad idea.

Hello,

First, sorry for answering this thread only now.

On 5/15/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:

Who has the final say in the logo? can each wikibooks project select a logo individually, or do all wikibooks projects have to have the same logo? What I mean to ask is, can the en.wikibooks community vote on the issue themselves, or do we have to have a "global" discussion on meta only?

The board has the final say in the logo. It should take a decision about logos chosen by members of the community after asking recommendation from the Marketing Committee.

About the color issue: logos must be specific from each project. It should avoid Wikimedia colors and blue derivative ones, as we already have too many blue logos. A logo is the most important vector of visual identity and each project must have its own identity, thus its own color in logo.

Hello,

On 5/17/07, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:

On 5/17/07, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 5/15/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:

...

Who has the final say in the logo? can each wikibooks project select a logo individually, or do all wikibooks projects have to have the same logo? What I mean to ask is, can the en.wikibooks community vote on the issue themselves, or do we have to have a "global" discussion on meta only?

The board has the final say in the logo. It should take a decision about logos chosen by members of the community after asking recommendation

from

...

the Marketing Committee.

About the color issue: logos must be specific from each project. It

should

...

avoid Wikimedia colors and blue derivative ones, as we already have too

many

...

blue logos. A logo is the most important vector of visual identity and

each

...

project must have its own identity, thus its own color in logo.

Thanks Guillaume,

but this is not made clear anywhere obvious - if at all. After a root around I found http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Marketing - but there is no mention of this on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo, where I think it should be - go edit!

Right. Some pages need to be updated.

The idea of a colour scheme was introduced very late into the

Wikiversity logo vote, and I gather it was likewise in the Wikibooks one too.

Ahem, I wouldn't say the colour scheme was introduced "very late" in the Wikiversity logo vote :) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%2Flogo%2Farchive-vot...

From the very beginning, it was indicated the logo should not look like the

Wikimedia logo or another logo of a Wikimedia project. From the second phase, there was a warning about the colours : http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity/logo/archive-vote-2&... Last, all people who voted for the logo have seen the big section title stating "colours will have to be changed to non-Wikimedia colours", they just didn't care.

Has there been a communication problem? Surely. The marketing committee has been created only in October. It seems its creation has been hardly noticed. As a reminder, here is the email announcing its creation : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-October/024087.html

See the paragraph:

== Logos ==

The promotion subcom will act as intermediate institution between community and board in the process of choosing new project logos. It will check if community chosen project logos fullfill the necessary requirements (format specification, copyright situation etc., see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logos) to become official project logos and submit them with a recommendation to the board for approval.

The subsequent vote on the Wikiversity logo colour change was

not to change it. ;-) So, what should we do? And will/should this colour scheme apply to all projects, effectively prompting a series of logo changes?

Definitely. But don't worry, this is going to come along with other major changes, and it will be done by consulting the community.

I think it would be great if the Marketing committee would give

guidance and leadership on the issue of the logo - provided this is open to discussion. I'm open to rethinking the whole process in the light of various comments in this branding discussion - is this something the committee have thought about?

I have precisely been working on a document about visual identity, logos, brands etc. It even contains a section called "Choosing good logos" ;-) But this document needs some further work from the Committee before being released, and then it will be submitted to the board. As soon as this plan is officially approved, we will come back to the community. In the meanwhile, all comments/requests are welcome on [[m:Talk:Marketing]] :-)

On 5/17/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:

What is this "marketing committee"? I have never heard about this group at all.

Please read my previous email, you will find this link : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-October/024087.html

This hard-core attitude that not only are related color schemes supposed

to be different but simply can't use the main WMF logo colors at all in any way, nor even suggest the WMF in any other way seems to fly in a diametrically opposite direction from any kind of common marketing or unifying philosophy.

The fact Wikimedia colors must be avoided has been the policy for some time and afaik it is still the policy. Erik's proposal is only a proposal from a user of the community for the moment. It is not an official statement of the board ; I don't even know if this has been discussed within the board. The marketing committee has been working on a series of changes and will present soon to the board a document summing up this work. The name of this document is "Strengthening and unifying the visual identity of Wikimedia projects", so you see we share a will of unification with Erik. We just don't seem to propose the same solutions. All that requires discussion. If the board decides the best way to unification is to change all logos to wikimedia colors, the marketing committee will comply. But for now, we are working on the actual policy and I provide advice based on this policy.

Hello Andrew,

On 5/17/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:

...

The marketing committee has been working on a series of changes and will present soon to the board a document summing up this work. The name of this document is "Strengthening and unifying the visual identity of Wikimedia

projects",

Guillom, it appears you have all the answers (or all the answers that are available), so let me ask you this directly: If the marketing committee is working on this proposal for presentation to the board, should any logo discussions just wait until that happens? I mean, I dont want to set up a logo vote/discussion now if the board is just going to go in a different direction from us. In short, should we wait for the marketing committee to present?

I certainly don't have all the answers :-) But when I have seen you raising the logo issue on this list, I have thought it would be good to let you know about the ongoing works. I have talked about the works from the marketing committee. Robert has mentioned Erik's proposal; they are not contrary, but they both show there are global ongoing discussions whose conclusions will impact the visual identity of all projects, including Wikibooks. In my humble opinion, both our work and Erik's proposal should encourage you to wait a little :-)

I want to get the ball rolling on a new logo discussion ASAP, but i'm not

going to waste my time with it if the board changes the rules in mid vote.

I fully agree, and this is precisely why I have taken part in this thread: to prevent Wikibookians from rushing into discussions about logos if the rules change soon.