Game guides - Textbook-l

9 Jun 2006

It would be useful if Jimmy would comment on the questions asked, but I would like to make
the following comments (the numbers refer to Lord Voldemort's initial email):

1, 2. My understanding is that Wikibooks' purpose always has been to provide
textbooks. Article II of the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws says, in part, refers to 
"... a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as
textbooks and annotated public domain books) named Wikibooks".  (see
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws )

3. The Wikimedia Foundation, operating through its Board, have overall control of
Wikibooks (they set its scope in the Foundation bylaws, and can choose to change this or
to close the project if they see fit). However, subject to this, Wikibookians deal with
the day to day editing of the site, including the setting of site policies (whilst this is
subject to them being consistent with what the WMF says, the WMF is very hands-off in this
regard).

4, 5. Games guides are not textbooks. Therefore they do not fit within Wikibooks'
purpose.

6, 7. Wikibooks' contributors must work within the defined scope of the project. They
are on a very free rein as to what they do, but they cannot extend this scope. Requests
for scope changes and new Wikimedia projects can be made on Metawiki.

8. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There is no special Wikibooks
definition of it. A textbook on games, game design, history of games that would assist
someone studying them would be within Wikibooks' scope. Note, however, that no-one
would reasonably describe a simple games walkthrough as a textbook. They might call it a
guide or perhaps, at a push, a manual, but it would not be a textbook in the normal
sense.

9. A straightforward guide on a board game would not normally be described as a textbook.
As for game guides, however, it would be possible to write a detailed textbook on some
board games suitable for students.

10, 11. The talk of an "accredited institution" metric appears to have been
suggested mostly by those speaking out in favour of keeping games guides, with the idea of
rubbishing it as providing too narrow an inclusion criterion. We don't need such a
metric - the general test is whether the book is or is not a textbook (but see my
qualification of this below). An "accredited institution" metric along the lines
of "if a subject is studied in a number of accredited institutions it can be deemed
worthy of study" may be acceptable in the sense that textbook subjects meeting that
test should be allowed. However, any such test should not be limiting - there are many
worthwhile subjects for study that do not meet that test that are within Wikibooks'
scope.

12. Inevitably the removal of game guides from Wikibooks will see those who only edited
those areas of Wikibooks leave. It will also see those who spent some of their time on
Wikibooks on editing game guides, and some time on textbooks, reduce the time they spend
on Wikibooks. On the other hand, a more focused Wikibooks will help attract other new
editors committed to providing quality open-content textbooks.

13. I would add the following. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There
are many possible subject areas and styles for textbooks. The word should be interpreted
widely on Wikibooks, but the meaning should not be stretched so as to include texts that
are clearly not textbooks in any sense of the word. There are also some subjects that are
innately inappropriate as subjects of textbooks, or which would be deemed unsuitable -
these are few and far between, but might include textbooks extolling black (or white)
supremacy, a textbook to train people in terrorism, a textbook on a little recognised
constructed language (such as one I have just made up, or which literally only a handful
of people have any interest in). Other than extreme cases such as these (which can be
discussed on WB:VFD), all textbooks should be welcome on Wikibooks.

X. There has not been a suggestion that all "How-tos" were removed. Jimbo has
noted that some "How-tos" should be removed (which was certainly true at the
time). This unfortunately, but I believe erroneously, was picked up by some to mean that
all How-tos should be removed.

Y. Eric Moeller's suggestion of renaming Wikibooks to Wikitextbooks has some merit.
Although "Wikitextbooks" is longer and less sexy, it would make clearer to
everyone what Wikibooks' scope is. Many people, particularly on Wikipedia, incorrectly
think that any book content is suitable for Wikibooks. This is a misconception that really
should be removed.

Kind regards

Jon
(jguk)