On 21/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So, this time next year, we'll have to deal with hordes of people who joined the project because of the book quoting it as policy in discussions when the relevant policy has been updated. Boy, I'm cynical.
I'd tend to agree. We might even have to create a whole new disclaimers/guideline explicitly saying that Wikimedia didn't endorse this book and that quoting it as "the truth" doesn't mean squat.
If the book is any good it'll point that out itself, along with the fact that this is true of the policy pages on Wikipedia itself.
In that sense I could see the book going two completely different ways
- it could focus on quoting policy pages as written, or it could
instead focus on the de facto power structure and the concept of "ignore all rules". The latter would be much more interesting.
I don't think we need to worry about it rewriting abstract matters of policy on us; the bulk of any book like this is going to be "At the top of the page, there is a 'history' tab". There's unlikely to be much we need to worry being quoted against us; practical not procedural advice.
Really, most users will have very little interaction with the wonderful world of our Kafkaesque bureaucracy, and the book synopsis reflects that.
"...gives you practical advice on how to create articles and collaborate with fellow editors, how to improve existing articles, and how to work with the Wikipedia community to review new articles, mediate disputes, and maintain the site.
* Basic editing techniques, including the right and wrong ways to edit * Pinpoint advice about which types of articles do and do not belong on Wikipedia * Ways to work with page histories and how to use the site's "talk pages" * How to use templates and time-saving automated editing tools * Tools for fighting spam and vandalism
..."
So four "practical" aspects, two of which veer into community interaction, and one "theological" one.
The target audience for this isn't rule-lawyers looking for a new trick; it's people who've heard of us and like the idea but have no idea how to contribute. It's *exactly* the sort of thing we want for opening up new groups of editors.