Jimmy Wales wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
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.
This is a mistake, actually. The best way to attract and keep new
contributors is to have a clean and passionate mission which is kept as
simple as possible. Seeing tolerance for a "white power" racist tract
(which went through a long vfd before finally being deleted after I saw
it and complained, rather than deleting on sight and banning the creator
as a racist vandal...) is a great way to drive away contributors -- the
same goes for other cruft like "How to get a girl".
This is one area that we very much disagree. I did not like this
Wikibook in particular, and I'd also like to note that the time from
when the VfD discussion started to when it ended was among one of
shortest in the history of Wikibooks, not the longest. I think this is
a classic example of precisely how the Wikibooks community is working
rather than how it is failing, as you seem to mention. Also, I don't
remember you complaining about this Wikibook at all until after it was
already deleted. BTW, have you seen the Wikipedia article on [[w:White
nationalism]]? Using this same logic, this article on Wikipedia should
be deleted on the spot and all of the participants banned as well.
The "How to get a girl" debate is more a good example of how a VfD
should not be handled, as it was against a particular section of a
Wikibook than the whole project, and only part of it was deleted. Most
of the debate over that Wikibook was from before I became an admin and a
regular participant on Wikibooks. In many ways I'm sorry you were
dragged into that argument.
"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 very strongly disagree. Wikibooks does not need such books, and it
was an is an embarassment to see such a thing.
--Jimbo
So, do you have a personal beef against [[b:User:Zondor]]? He has been
active on both Wikipedia and Wikibooks, making some very useful
contributions. Perhaps a warning on his user talk page would be
warrented, but to out right ban him ignoring the rest of his
contributions? I admit that the way he started this particular Wikibook.
Also, are you aware of the firestorm that this whole action has caused?
I want to share a couple of comments that have come my way from users
looking to me for some leadership on Wikibooks:
Future of Wikibooks...
Okay, I really /did/ get here at the wrong time. When Jimbo comes in to
say something like he did, I assume he speaks for the entire Board.
Unless another member of the Board comes in to refute Jimbo, I will
continue to assume that this is the way the Wikimedia Foundation wants
Wikibooks to go. I will not fight for something that I cannot see a good
point fighting for. There is just so much /crap/ here. Even the mailing
list couldn't provoke a Board member's opinion on the matter. I am just
so fed up with all this crap. I /do/ think that you fail to assume good
faith on Jimbo's part by saying it may be financially motivated. I just
hate all this infighting and can't really keep it up. But until there is
a definite ruling, I can't completely give it up either. I am so torn on
this issue. And I am not sure that the community at-large can "overrule"
Jimbo on this matter either. If we overrule him, why wouldn't he just
say, "Okay, there is no more Wikibooks. Sorry. Shoulda played by the
rules." and then just shut it off? Who knows. I'll be back later I
guess. This whole thing stinks on ice. --LV
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Lord_Voldemort> ^(Dark Mark)
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Lord_Voldemort> 16:04, 21
November 2005 (UTC)
Settle this!!
You guys (Horning and friends) appear to be about as close to the center
of decision making as we peons can access. I have't figured out how to
contact Mr. Wales. At this point I almost don't care what the decision
is about what is allowed and what is not, but I think in fairness to
everyone, we need a decision and a clear definition of where lines will
be drawn /*and enformcement from day one.*/ Any other way, we get people
like myself wasting our time. What can I do to press for a decision????
Frog One <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Frog_One> 00:43, 23 November
2005 (UTC)
I'm just a humble admin trying to keep this project together and to make
this community something that we can all be proud of. I have been
vocal, and indeed I even went and deleted one of the Wikibooks that you,
Mr. Wales, railed against and suggested that it be deleted at once? Do
you know what I got for my efforts at trying to delete [[b:Naturism]]?
The book was undeleted and now I am in an edit war with another admin
over wheither this Wikibook should be restored. My status as an admin
is even being called into question, for enforcing a decision that _YOU_
made. I guess I should have let you use your newly given admin status
and waited for you to do the deletion yourself rather than taking arrows
in my own back.
The #1 complaint I have here about this whole thing is not so much what
you've done, but how you've done it, particularly in regard to changing
policy without really explaining this policy change. These decisions
seem arbitrary, and now the community really doesn't know where to go
from here. I am asking you, Mr. Wales, to try and help smooth down the
discussion, and help to determine just who and how community decisions
to keep or delete content on Wikibooks should happen. If you want to
become more involved in that process, you are welcome, but I do think
you should trust the participants who have spent many years working on
this Wikimedia project. Know that the future of this project is at
stake as well, based on your actions here.
Uh ?
I have not followed that thread at all in the past few days and decided
just this morning to give it a quick look, and the second mail I find is
this one...
So, I will say only two things, because without being aware of the full
discussion, I could just fall short.
First point : I know Wikibooks very little. I know it mostly from two
perspectives. One perspective is Wikiversity. The second perspective is
the cookbook.
The cookbook : I had a long time fight with Gentgeen, when he started
moving all (or nearly all recipees) away from en.Wikipedia. I tried
desperatly to keep them in Wikipedia, but most were moved nevertheless I
think. I did not oppose recipees being in Wikibooks, but simply, maybe
because french, I consider many recipees are "cultural", so have their
place in an encyclopedia.
In case (I do not know), Wikibooks is listed in the books to be deleted,
because it is *not* a textbook, I would be happy to know. Because I will
oppose the deletion.
Wikiversity : is supposed to be dedicated to e-teaching material... part
of it being on Wikibooks. It was obvious in my mind that Wikibooks was
welcoming ... traditional (academic) material (suitable to be used
within Wikiversity) as well as any other types of wikibooks (such as
cookbooks, howtos, guides, wikijuniors etc...). I think should be within
wikibooks things such as "how to repaint your house", "how to build an
electricity solar system", "The European Community for kids",
"Vegetarian Recipees for everyday life", "First help for injured
people"
or "Best practices to avoid catching AIDS".
Second point : I have not read the wikibooks discussion specifically, so
can not say whether I agree with Jimbo or not on this specific point. I
most of the time agree with Jimbo, but sometimes have a different opinion.
I would like to make it clear that Jimbo's opinion should be his
opinion, unless specifically said to be board opinion. Angela, I,
Michael and Tim, we are all human beings with our own opinions on things
and unless we are specifically asked our opinion, I do not think it is
okay to consider that what Jimbo's say, we necessarily go along with. By
default, we are separate people. Similarly, this is not because we do
not say anything on a topic, that we necessarily agree with the only one
talking. We may disagree and decide not to say anything or we may not be
aware of the issue at all. I think it is important not to make these
types of confusions.
Ant