Hello,
I would like to give a precision. Paris contacted Jimbo to talk to him about this proposal a while ago now. We met Paris in New York, where we had the opportunity to discuss this project around a set of beers :-)
In Paris mind, this project was not a wikibook, but rather a new project, due to the differences he wished to be brought, both in terms of templates, and in terms of registration.
After discussion, we agreed that this project could be part of wikibooks rather than a new project.
We asked Paris that he send a full proposal to this mailing list, so that everyone can grasp the implications and possibly join.
As for myself, I had not really understood what he meant by templates, and now that I read the description, I do not think it is problematic.
A template model can be set by Paris himself (it must be defined before starting the pages) and be used for all pages. We manage to do this for Wikipedia for example in all country pages. Paris, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproject_Countries to see what I mean.
However Paris has a point when he insists on "authority", since his area is particularly technically and legally touchy.
Still, Paris, the strength of the wiki model is precisely that anyone can edit. If only to help you set the template, or fix typos or do categories etc...
I do think you can start the project without mandatory "creditials request". And I think you can do it within wikibooks to start
Here is what I suggest
First, make it clear that there will be a dual population authorized to edit these page * the crowd, with no credentials given. This crowd might possibly be autorized by "rules" (human rules rather than technical rules) not to edit the medical content. You might request a sort of moral engagement not to do so, and it is your business to enforce this. Of course, such a rule should have to be approved by participants to this project
* some people with credentials. They would be adding the medical content mostly. OR they would be the ones authorized to validate it. You can equally make a template for them to put on their pages, where they will state all what you mentionned. You could make a special page to list all of them, and display it proeminently on the main page of your book. You could also make a rule so that these guys make a validation committee and might have the right to "approve" article with a big stamp.
Aside from technical possibilities, you have a lot of power as a *human*, through the strength of recommandations, through rules and through enforcement. Actually, if the community editing the book agrees with such guidelines and believe faithfully in its wiseness, it will be more powerful than any technical fancy feature.
What you need "now" is not tech, what you need it people, many people, some with credentials, some without, and build a community around it, with its own local rules.
I understand the need for "stamp of approval", but it will be important when there is "content". For now, there is no content. Build the framework, animate the community, add the content, then, there will be something to protect. The community will protect the content. And you can then use your group of "credited" people to set a validation/approval system which will please outside people.
Do you really think a "paper" encyclopedia is ONLY written by big professors ????
No, I do not think so, there are people taking care of typo, reorganising text to make it look better, working on displaying pictures in a nicer way. The big professor just add quickly the content, let it for others to organise it well, put their big names as a stamp of approval somewhere, and then, they go to a conference.
Just do the same :-) And you'll see that will work fine.
What you need is human leader to get it started and serious work on mission statement, guidelines and policies; That will work :-)
Anthere
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
--- Paris Lovett paris@pazzah.com wrote:
I'm writing to let everybody know more about the proposed Emergency Medicine Wikibook.
Emergency Medicine Wikibook - great idea. But you don't need permission to start such a thing, just go to http://en.wikibooks.org and get to work! :)
I've met with board members and it seems at the present time that our main challenge is finding interested programmers to create templates and a special registration screen.
Registration system? I'm sorry but that is not the way we do things around here. We had one project called Nupedia that had a registration system and it was nearly a complete failure. Its only saving grace was that its looming downfall led to the creation to Wikipedia (whose initial purpose was to breathe life back into Nupedia - but that never happened and Wikipedia quickly became its own thing).
The open-source Wikibook model is a strong fit with the rapidly changing and incredibly broad field of Emergency Medicine. Traditional textbooks simply can't cover all the little things which walk into an Emergency Room, everything from broken toes, to heart attacks and strokes, to stabbings and shootings.
This is all great and wonderful, but instead of having controls on what people do up front, why not have control on what is included in a published/static copy? The live Wikibook would be the place where development of the Wikibook takes place and a separate website is where approved parts of that would be used by emergency medicine professionals.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com