Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
1) Wikibooks is for textbooks, and this should be
narrowly construed
to mean classical textbooks, not to include any learning resources
such as encyclopedias.
I tend to interpret the role of Wikibooks very broadly, certainly to
go beyond the idea of the classical textbook. In some ways the
classical textbook is antithetical to good education because it tends
to mould its users into the same series of learning experiences. A
single Wikibook should begin with a subject that can be included in
Wikipedia but which requires expansion into a book that in theory
could be published as a stand alone entity. The Cookbook was a good
example of this. There was a great debate at one time about the
inclusion of recipes in Wikipedia. Some were accepted as proper to
Wikipedia, but the bulk ended up in Wikibooks where NPOV could also
be approached with a more relaxed interpretation.
Ec
A huge issue that has recently erupted on Wikibooks is resulting from
a thread started by of all people Jimbo in the Staff Lounge:
"In the next 24 to 48 hours, I will delete a variety of pages from
Wikibooks which are a clear and simple violation of our charter.
Jokebook <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Jokebook>, Getting a date
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Getting_a_date>, Naturism
<http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Naturism&action=edit> are
all not textbooks and need to be moved to another site. There may be
more.--Jimbo Wales <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>
17:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)"
While I may agree with him in regards to those particular Wikibooks,
this has resulted in a huge examination of the overall philosophy of
Wikibooks and what should and should not be there. In particular,
Jimbo also changed the wording of an official policy from:
"As a general rule, any book you might expect to find in the
non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop is acceptable."
to become instead:
"As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the
non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not
acceptable. This is for textbooks."
This is Jimbo's website, so I guess he can make arbitrary changes like
this whenever he wants to. Still, as a Wikibook admin I am scratching
my head to understand the full impact of this official policy change.
In particular, it means that non-textbooks like the Cookbook may have
to go, at least if we have a consistant textbook-only policy. A large
number of items are also being trans-wikied from Wikipedia to
Wikibooks, so it is important as well to Wikpedia users to understand
what the implications of this policy change is going to be. And this
is a policy change, as much as Jimbo wants to hide from that fact.
There is a general tolerance of new content that goes onto Wikibooks,
in part because it is a smaller project and we are trying to attract
and keep contributors even if they add content that perhaps should be
there. Writing a book is harder, and in some ways much harder than
even an encyclopedia entry. Driving away new contributors just
because they do something against policy is especially harmful.
Jimbo's comment that followed was especially harsh:
"I'm happy to give more time, but these books are already candidates
for speedy deletion. The point is that, to give on example which was
thankfully already deleted, a racist white-power book is not a
textbook, never will be a textbook, and should have been deleted on
site and the creator banned for vandalism on site. --Jimbo Wales
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> 21:03, 13 November
2005 (UTC)"
The user that added this white power book has otherwise done Wikibooks
quite a bit of good, and banning him would only make an enemy rather
than a useful contributor. I prefer to follow the model of trying to
mentor and encourage proper behavior where possible, and this user was
not showing signs of traditional vandalism, nor would I want to drive
this user to go in that direction. We did delete the white-power book
after a surprisingly short period of time on the Wikibooks VfD page.
I think this issue needs to be brought to the attention of the larger
Wikimedia community, and to be aware that there is a huge struggle
going on to try an interpret Jimbo's actions here.
Without commenting on the applicability to the specified books, this
policy change is bizarre and out of character. (Still I do note that
there seems to be no attempt to get rid of [[Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and
Other Deleted Nonsense]].) My primary activity has been on an other
project, so I have not kept up to date on all the policy discussions,
but I do remember the original establishment of Wikibooks, and the split
off of Wikisource. The intent and purpose of Wikibooks was seen in
very broad terms; any kind of non-fiction book that you might find in a
library or bookstore represents a fair assessment of the broadest
mandates. (Including the word "local" might even be too restrictive
unless it allows for comparable facilities on a university campus.)
Exceptions to that should be clearly described. Insisting on a strict
interpretation of "textbook" suggests that we are clear about the
meaning of that word, but are we really so clear? "Textbook" may imply
some kind of attempt at standardization, but about what subjects? We
don't need to limit ourselves to books about traditional school
curriculum subjects; a textbook about how to play some videogame is
still a textbook. From my perspective a cookbook IS a textbook. The
concept of "no original research probably needs to be interpreted more
flexibly than in Wikipedia. It would certainly be appropriate to use it
to prevent the development of entirely new wacko theories, but
developing subject continuity or filling the gaps between chapters may
often require original research.
If a handful of books are determined to be offensive that may be ample
reason for deleting those books; those books should not become straw men
to justify policies that have nothing to do with what makes them
offensive. To be sure there have been a few recent discussions on the
mailing list about Wikibooks, but none of it has been particularly
alarming. The Wikijunior and Wikiversity discussions seemed relatively
normal. "How to Get a Girl," has been mentioned, but that was a fairly
focussed discussion about one book. There have been other discussions
about other projects where the persuasiveness of an elephant's foot
would have been far more welcome.
In many respects you ar right when you say that Jimbo can make arbitrary
changes whenever and wherever he wants on a site that belongs. (The
legal niceties about a person's relationship with a registered
non-profit society that he founded are well beyond the scope of these
comments.) Much of what has been built up over what is now nearly five
years has been built on trust and on support for a fundamental idea.
People who have contributed enormous amounts of time, and more recently
money, have contributed to an idea and a vision rather than a person.
They have been able to put aside staggeringly different political
philosophies for the sake of something in which they all believe.
Creators who intervene in the societies thay have created often do so at
a price; it can even mean that people begin not to believe in God anymore.
Ec