Magnus Manske wrote:
.... One more thing (more like a personal request): I would like to limit editing to logged-in people only. Now calm down, I don't try to rip the wiki principle apart. I just think that since this will be a more organized effort than wikipedia, and as I'd rather not spent my time cleaning up vandals on the textbook wiki all the time as well, I think it might be a good idea to prevent bypassing vandals from inserting "yo mom's stupid". Everyone would be free to get a user account, just like on wikipedia. Just an extension: "You can edit this page right now. Just get a free user account first". People who'd like to invest serious time here will most certainly do that.
I don't know if that is such a good idea, but it still might be worth trying for the first reason you mentioned (that this is a more organized project). But me being me (a worry wart) I just think the vandals will get user names and we will loose valid contributors by forcing them to set-up an account (probably also provide a valid e-mail address) just to correct a typo. IMO it would also make it much less obvious that anyone /can/ edit any page just by logging-in -- all they would see was "Protected page" where the edit button should be and "Log-in." That doesn't make it obvious we are a wiki, no?
We might, however, allow anon edits but limit them to say 10 a day like Slashdot. But I do recall getting pretty pissed on Slashdot when trying to submit my 11th post as Anonymous Coward and getting the message "Hold on there cowboy!" (the SlashCode and my browser were not cooperating and I wasn't able to log-in in the first place). We could manage that better though.
So maybe we can coax people in a nice way to log-in by just reminding them about logging in after they make their 10th (or whatever) edit by having a short message in bold text under the edit button. And also maybe have those IPs show up in bold in Recent Changes.
Yeah, I know, I'm babbling and off-topic. So I'll stop now.
I guess I'm not sleeping tonight - oh well.
BTW, I agreed with all your other concept ideas.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Magnus Manske wrote:
I would like to limit editing to logged-in people only. Now calm down, I don't try to rip the wiki principle apart.
I wouldn't be extremely opposed to this, but I think we should be very cautious about moves in this direction.
Particularly since textbooks are, by their nature, not as general as an encyclopedia, there is a smaller pool of authors *per book*, so that we need to be very careful about any barriers to participation.
Here's the thing that I want to keep reminding everyone: the whole idea of wiki is completely insane. It's obvious to me, based on everything I know about human nature, that it just can't possibly work. But... it does.
So my inclination is to discourage 'a priori problem solving', as least to a degree. Nupedia was an exercise in excessive a priori community design, and it failed miserably. But trusting people to do the right thing seems to work remarkably well.
Even so, it's entirely possible that the community dynamic for writing a textbook is very different from the community dynamic for writing an encyclopedia. So experience might teach us that radical-wiki-openness really can't work here.
Still, isn't that something that we should let experience teach us, rather than making assumptions beforehand?
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Particularly since textbooks are, by their nature, not as general as an encyclopedia, there is a smaller pool of authors *per book*, so that we need to be very careful about any barriers to participation.
The smaller pool of authors is the very reason I'd prefer logged-in edits only, as less "real" authors means shifting the author:vandal ratio in favor of the vandals.
On the other hand, keeping anonymous edits might be good as well, as vandals then wouldn't log in, and *potential* (!) vandalism could be rather easily on Recent Changes by the very fact that it's an anonymous edit (most "real" authors are probably logged in).
Here's the thing that I want to keep reminding everyone: the whole idea of wiki is completely insane. It's obvious to me, based on everything I know about human nature, that it just can't possibly work. But... it does.
So my inclination is to discourage 'a priori problem solving', as least to a degree. Nupedia was an exercise in excessive a priori community design, and it failed miserably. But trusting people to do the right thing seems to work remarkably well.
Even so, it's entirely possible that the community dynamic for writing a textbook is very different from the community dynamic for writing an encyclopedia. So experience might teach us that radical-wiki-openness really can't work here.
Still, isn't that something that we should let experience teach us, rather than making assumptions beforehand?
OK, I'm convinced! Let's keep anon edits in until all hell breaks loose ;-)
Oh, one motivational issue: So far, in Germany the state paid for all the books in school. Just today, it was announced that due to Germany's financial sorta crisis, the parents will have to pay for the books in the future. Too bad there's no free source for such books...
Magnus
--- Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
On the other hand, keeping anonymous edits might be good as well, as vandals then wouldn't log in, and *potential* (!) vandalism could be rather easily on Recent Changes by the very fact that it's an anonymous edit (most "real" authors are probably logged in).
That seems akin to racial profiling. I knew a great previously-anon user who now goes by Crusadeonilliteracy. He didn't want to take credit for his contrabutions, so he didn't make a login. But a login was required to upload pictures and move pages, so he made a username. If he couldn't make anon edits, he probably wouldn't use wikipedia. I, and probably the majority of the people on this list, also started out anon for the first few contrabutions. Anonimity is an essential part of a wiki. UseMod (which most wikis run on for simplicity and speed, no offence Magnus) doesn't even have logins. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Anonimity is an essential part of a wiki. UseMod (which most wikis run on for simplicity and speed, no offence Magnus) doesn't even have logins.
Well, we switched from UseMod primarily because it could no longer handle the load, so "speed" is a relative thing.
But remember that anonymity is actually *greater* for logged in users. You can make up any sort of name, and no one can even guess where you are. When you're working un-logged-in, anyone can figure out what ISP you are using, and often what city you're located in.
So, really, not that anyone ever believes it, ha ha, the truth is that logins provide enhanced anonymity.
--Jimbo
Magnus Manske wrote:
The smaller pool of authors is the very reason I'd prefer logged-in edits only, as less "real" authors means shifting the author:vandal ratio in favor of the vandals.
Well, you do have a very good point there. A very good point indeed.
On the other hand, keeping anonymous edits might be good as well, as vandals then wouldn't log in, and *potential* (!) vandalism could be rather easily on Recent Changes by the very fact that it's an anonymous edit (most "real" authors are probably logged in).
Well, maybe we could try it this way, allowing anonymous edits, but be prepared to make a switch if it seems like trouble. Making the switch is easy software-wise, and won't be controversial if we all agree in advance that it's possible that it would be useful.
So far, in Germany the state paid for all the books in school. Just today, it was announced that due to Germany's financial sorta crisis, the parents will have to pay for the books in the future. Too bad there's no free source for such books...
Very interesting, is this at all levels of school?
In public schools in the U.S. up through high school, books are generally provided. In all states? In most states? I don't know for sure.
In universities, books are not provided, and are unreasonably expensive.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
Magnus Manske wrote:
So far, in Germany the state paid for all the books in school. Just today, it was announced that due to Germany's financial sorta crisis, the parents will have to pay for the books in the future. Too bad there's no free source for such books...
In public schools in the U.S. up through high school, books are generally provided. In all states? In most states? I don't know for sure.
In most (if not all) States, they're generally provided. Whether they're up to date and in good shape, and whether there are enough for each individual student (so they don't have to trade off who gets to take the book home), well these matters will depend on the available funding.
I get the impression from Magnus' post that in Germany, the funding of textbooks is done on a national level. (Not /some/ parents, but /all/ parents, due to a /national/ fiscal crisis.) Of course, the US does these things at a State level. But the funding of textbooks is in many (most? all?) States is in fact a /local/ budgetary decision; so you may see neighbouring districts in the same State (county, city) with very different funding levels for all sorts of things.
Partly, this is because of our traditional reliance on locally collected taxes, generally property taxes. School districts here are chartered by their States to collect taxes within their boundaries to fund themselves. The idea is to give the districts a measure of autonomy, by not making them dependent on the State government for funds. But another result is that the funds available to a district depend heavily on the wealth of the property owners there; poor districts have poor books, and rich districts have good books. Also, since districts in most (all?) States now supplement the property tax with a great deal of State funding, and even take a small but significant amount of national funding, the goal of financial independence is pretty much shot anyway.
That's why the national government is able to require (say) national standards testing or gender equality in sports without a direct mandate from the Constitution to regulate local schools; they simply put that clause into the funding bill, and the local districts can either comply or do without. (Well, that's how they get the Supreme Court to swallow it, at least. I don't intend to try to /justify/ such legal chicanery.)
-- Toby
Maveric149 wrote in part:
IMO it would also make it much less obvious that anyone /can/ edit any page just by logging-in -- all they would see was "Protected page" where the edit button should be and "Log-in." That doesn't make it obvious we are a wiki, no?
If we require /everybody/ to log in, then it shouldn't say that. It should say "'''Edit this page'''" with a nice bright link -- that sends them to the log in page (returning to the edit page).
Yeah, I know, I'm babbling and off-topic. So I'll stop now.
You know what you need? A trip to Yosemite! ^_^
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
If we require /everybody/ to log in, then it shouldn't say that. It should say "'''Edit this page'''" with a nice bright link -- that sends them to the log in page (returning to the edit page).
-- Toby
But it's so much easier when you don't have to log into things. Sometimes, I edit wikipedia anon when I don't have enough time to login, and that is very convenient. I don't see why these extra restrictions must be added. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
LittleDan wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
If we require /everybody/ to log in, then it shouldn't say that. It should say "'''Edit this page'''" with a nice bright link -- that sends them to the log in page (returning to the edit page).
But it's so much easier when you don't have to log into things. Sometimes, I edit wikipedia anon when I don't have enough time to login, and that is very convenient. I don't see why these extra restrictions must be added.
Since I did just give an argument about how the login regime might be made to work smoothly, let me note that I too see no need for it yet. And I also began as an anonymous editor. And, yes, I probably wouldn't be here if I hadn't (judge for yourselves if that's good or bad ^_^).
-- Toby
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
So maybe we can coax people in a nice way to log-in by just reminding them about logging in after they make their 10th (or whatever) edit by having a short message in bold text under the edit button. And also maybe have those IPs show up in bold in Recent Changes. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
That sounds like a good idea (except for IPs in bold; no real reason to do that if we're flooded), but I think we'd need to make a page like [[Wikipedia:Reasons to get a username]] or something like that, that we'd link to in the warning. And the warning should be for all anon contributions, but small and ignorable for those who wish to be a long-term anon contributer. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org