On 11/1/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote: It is clear that many people are afraid that the idea is too half-baked or not ready enough to be started. This is currently true - Wikiversity exists as many different ideas in many people's heads, with plenty of enthusiasm but not much to actually to show for it. But my counter argument to this is: *every* wiki project has developed from a similar position. Every wiki is an idea which is generated and created through the combined energy of its participants - you only have to look at the various listings of people at the vote or on the proposed projects page or on the meta Wikiversity talk page amongst others, to see that there is so much energy there waiting to be tapped, and rearing to go. That, surely, is the main thing. I think the crucial point is that Wikiversity, if created now, will not (in the main) be ready to actually go live as a learning centre *just yet*. It needs to have a creation period, it needs to be widely known about to generate a learner base - and *then* it can flourish. Just don't expect results yet (though some courses could be created quite quickly - and who's to say that we need to constuct whole courses in the first place? What about single lesson plans? What about collections of flash cards? etc.)

Another major concern is resources - both human and electronic (ie. financial). ... I have a hunch that not only could we get a whole lot more poeple involved in setting up this project, but we could also get some major funding. UNESCO's ecucation for all campaign comes to mind - and I'd appreciate any other suggestions.

On 11/1/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote: I'd just like to thank you Robert for all the work you've put into this proposal, timetable, vote etc. I've been meaning to write up a proposal to the community on this, as Wikiversity is something that really energises me at the moment (mentally at least). (My lack of) time at the moment forbids me from going into everything I'd like to say about Wikiversity, but I'd liek to make some brief points. It is clear that many people are afraid that the idea is too half-baked or not ready enough to be started. This is currently true - Wikiversity exists as many different ideas in many people's heads, with plenty of enthusiasm but not much to actually to show for it. But my counter argument to this is: *every* wiki project has developed from a similar position. Every wiki is an idea which is generated and created through the combined energy of its participants - you only have to look at the various listings of people at the vote or on the proposed projects page or on the meta Wikiversity talk page amongst others, to see that there is so much energy there waiting to be tapped, and rearing to go. That, surely, is the main thing. I think the crucial point is that Wikiversity, if created now, will not (in the main) be ready to actually go live as a learning centre *just yet*. It needs to have a creation period, it needs to be widely known about to generate a learner base - and *then* it can flourish. Just don't expect results yet (though some courses could be created quite quickly - and who's to say that we need to constuct whole courses in the first place? What about single lesson plans? What about collections of flash cards? etc.) Another major concern is resources - both human and electronic (ie. financial). I don't know about the latter part (and I'd really like someone to tell us how much it would cost in server/work hours terms to set up a new project in comparison to what it would cost to set up a new language project on any other WMF project - hence crossposting to wikitech). But on the human resources side - i think, on the contrary, this will be an excellent opportunity for the projects to cross-pollinate (Wikipedia and Wikibooks especially) and draw in a huge sector of people that may have erstwhile have remained on the periphery of especially Wikipedia. I have a hunch that not only could we get a whole lot more poeple involved in setting up this project, but we could also get some major funding. UNESCO's ecucation for all campaign comes to mind - and I'd appreciate any other suggestions. That's all time permits me to say for now, but suffice to say that i have been reading around Wikiversity for a few months now and, for one, am highly motivated to get this off the ground. I know of quiet a few more and I know that it could really take off. So if we could have some very clear technical issues that need to be dealt with, I think that's where we should be focussing our attention, rather than the fact that it isn't ready/finished yet - because it just needs a bit of time, space, and a steady stream of energy that i know exists. I look forward to hearing from you. Cormac / Cormaggio

On 11/7/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: it one merely would in work board require a know university as think goals a There was a discussion about Wikiversity on IRC last night, as part of the Wikimedia Research Network, details and log of which can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-11-… I think you're raising some interesting points here - I think what's emerging for me is that some people are quite nervous about Wikiversity being a Wikimedia project - if it aspires to be an e-learning resource. I don't personally see the problem, as long as we start small, stay realistic and grow from there, but it is clear that more thinking (and probably research) needs to be done. This should be collated on Meta, probably on a new page like http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward - please feel free to add any ideas to related pages. I think at this stage we need practical proposals, but also practical questions. Thanks, Cormac

From the project page there are two parts to the project, creating teaching

> Cormac writes: >>I think you're raising some interesting points here - I think what's >>emerging for me is that some people are quite nervous about >>Wikiversity being a Wikimedia project - if it aspires to be an >>e-learning resource. I don't personally see the problem, as long as we >>start small, stay realistic and grow from there, but it is clear that >>more thinking (and probably research) needs to be done. This should be >>collated on Meta, probably on a new page like >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward - please >>feel free to add any ideas to related pages. I think at this stage we >>need practical proposals, but also practical questions.

Anthony writes: > Maybe a more narrow focus to start out would alleviate some of the concern. > From the project page there are two parts to the project, creating teaching > materials and then using them to teach. The first fits a lot better in with > Wikimedia... The actual teaching part, I think can wait, but if there are a few people > really dedicated to making it happen they should get together and start > doing it, Wikimedia project or not.

It seems to me the first part is pretty uncontroversial... though some people seem to consider it could entirely fit under wikibooks (the main problem being that many wikibooks do not agree with this).

The second part, the e-learning platform (ie, making possible to follow on-line courses, whith the collection of issues such as "credential of teachers", "diplomas" etc...) is highly controversial. It will directly compete with schools and universities (while making e-teaching material is likely to get teachers involved very much and likely to set up collaborations with schools). It will meet full face with the fact not all countries rely on the same educational organisation. It will stale in face of "diplomas" granting.

I believe we should not try to "replace" what currently exist, but we should rather seek to provide information or other formats of information to "enrich" what already exist.

On 11/8/05, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote: You say that "Wikipedia is *already* a teaching and learning community." And you're right, it is. But I think it's significant that the community isn't the purpose of the project, building an encyclopedia is. Likewise, I believe if a project is started to create e-learning materials, I think it's natural that some people will use that project to organize self-study courses and maybe even to discuss more traditional courses. I don't think we should stop them, and the organization of self-study courses pretty much falls under the creation of e-learning materials anyway. In fact, if essentially what you just wrote was what was on the project page when I read it, I would have gotten a completely different picture of what the project was. Looking back I see it in parts of the description. I wonder if maybe the name of the project could be reconsidered to better portray this goal. That would have pros and cons, though. Anyway, if votes still matter, you can count mine as a yes I guess. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/7/05, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: There was a discussion about Wikiversity on IRC last night, as part of the Wikimedia Research Network, details and log of which can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-11-… I think you're raising some interesting points here - I think what's emerging for me is that some people are quite nervous about Wikiversity being a Wikimedia project - if it aspires to be an e-learning resource. <*SNIP*>

On 11/9/05, Robert Scott Horning &lt;robert_horning(a)netzero.net&gt; wrote: That's simple, really - time and money. The people who donated to Wikimedia donated the money thinking it would be used to create books, encyclopedias, etc., not to run a school. That's the money story, but the more important one is time. The board of Wikimedia is stretched too thinly as it is. Wikipedia editors can't even participate in Wikibooks or Wikinews without creating separate logins. Admins on one project often have to go through a long process just to be able to effectively fight vandalism on another project. There is very little communication between the different projects. Starting up yet another half-baked project with no clear leadership is only going to make matters worse.

As far as the people who donated to Wikimedia hoping that it would be You misquoted me. I never said donations should only be used for Wikipedia. But instead of repeating myself I'll be precise: "The specific purpose for which [Wikimedia] is organized is: to create and freely distribute freely licensed encyclopedias, textbooks, reference works, and other literary, scientific, and educational information in all languages of the world." That's straight from the amended articles of incorporation. To spend any significant portion of donations on anything else is at best unethical.

I already said I have no problem as long as the purpose of Wikiversity is limited to creating and distributing learning materials, and doesn't include actually using those materials to teach.

In any case, I think the project should stay within Wikibooks.

On 11/11/05, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: There's enough urgency in the minds of some people that it has been listed on their VFD page. Anthony

Maybe we need an incubator Wiki for potential new sister projects. Wikicities is certainly not the solution for that. Wikicities is a for-profit project complete with advertising being run by a for-profit company whose only tie to Wikimedia is that its two founders are on the board of directors of Wikimedia (one of whom is the founder of Wikipedia). Anthony

Anyway, send me a link to a page on meta and I'll transfer my thoughts on this there. Or if I don't hear from you about it in a few hours I'll do it myself. Anthony

On 11/11/05, Robert Scott Horning &lt;robert_horning(a)netzero.net&gt; wrote: >Anthony DiPierro wrote: > > >>Maybe we need an incubator Wiki for potential new sister projects. >>Wikicities is certainly not the solution for that. Wikicities is a >>for-profit project complete with advertising being run by a for-profit >>company whose only tie to Wikimedia is that its two founders are on >>the board of directors of Wikimedia (one of whom is the founder of >>Wikipedia). >> >> >I would agree that there is a need for an incubator project. Clearly >the jump from minor discussion on this list and a minor writeup on the >Meta Wiki to turning on a seperate Wiki domain is much larger than >comparable projects on Wikicities, just for instance. As far as >Wikicities not being the correct solution, I would have to in general >agree but from everything I've seen that is the current recommended >solution with just about everybody strongly pushed onto Wikicities if >their content doesn't fit a current Wikimedia project. Even the new >projects proposal page strongly recommends Wikicities. >

I can see recommending Wikicities for projects which aren't applicable to Wikimedia at all - a wiki for fictional works for instance. But for proposed Wikimedia projects which just haven't been fleshed out enough to stand on their own, I don't think it's appropriate to host them on Jimmy and Angela's private server. You seem to agree with me, and that's good.

Wikibooks isn't the place for incubation of new projects, I agree. And I can see the argument that Wikiversity goes beyond the original scope of Wikibooks. Essentially I feel that Wikiversity is a superset of Wikibooks. For that reason I don't really feel comfortable saying that Wikiversity should be a separate project, I'd rather see Wikibooks expanded to include other materials. But I'd be willing to concede that point, in fact I essentially have. As for Wikijunior, well, I find it hard to see how that's not a book, but that's a completely different discussion.

I'd be willing to help. But in my opinion the guidelines should be very minimal, maybe two or three interested sponsors and a one page project proposal (which could be modified as the idea gets fleshed out). It's kind of the whole point of the wiki to make the threshold very low - unless there's a strong majority sentiment that the project could never become a Wikimedia project would I suggest removing something (barring a project which took up enormous resources, anyway). And yes, it'd be useful to change the whole policy for new projects to basically state that you have to make a test run on the incubator wiki first, but that's really a separate issue which could be hashed out later. Along those same lines I'd like to see the more borderline AFDs copied over. If Wikipedia decides to get rid of info about Pokemon maybe it could be made into a proposed project there (elementary schools which are considered non-notable might be a more reasonable candidate).

I think we have very different views as to what a Wiki Incubator would be. I don't really see the purpose as guaging interest, but more of answering questions and building a core community. In that sense I think something like Wikiversity would be perfect for it - yes, there's no lack of interest, but there are a number of questions to the point where approximately 1/3 of Wikimedians don't even think it should be a project.

I also don't see why a wiki for game cards or for elementary schools or for (to use another example) dead people wouldn't make a good wiki. In fact, at some point or another I've proposed the latter two as projects.

Finally, whatever Wikicities wants to do is up to it. We're talking about a small little site that pretty much no one has heard of. I really don't think it matters what they're trying to do. Wikimedia should make its policies for Wikimedia, and Wikicities can figure out how to deal with that.

Anyway, I can't edit on meta, and you seem to have a much different idea of an incubator wiki anyway. Besides, the idea has been floating around for months already. The cynic in me thinks that the red tape to create a project is probably too great, especially a project which threatens to "end up being a fork of" Angela's website.

On 11/13/05, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: I probably agree with you. But there is pretty strong opposition to Wikipedia being a phone book, a knowledge base, a geneology website, or a memorial website, though I think these all fit clearly within the scope of Wikimedia (and in fact much of "What Wikipedia is not" does). I seriously doubt the scope of Wikipedia is going to be expanded to include these things.

Are you suggesting Wikimedia *should* become a general wiki hosting site?

Wikicities already has a policy to not create encyclopedias in languages supported on Wikimedia, and not to create projects that duplicate existing Wikimedia ones, so I don't see any likely overlap, and any content currently at Wikicities can easily move to Wikimedia, if the community supports that, for as long as they share the same license.

A wiki used as a Wikimedia version of the WikiLabs at scratchpad.wikicities.com should obviously only contain things that have some chance of becoming Wikimedia projects or languages. This is what the community approval that you call "red tape" would be for if this site is launched. Otherwise, you're just wasting people's time by telling them to contribute to a wiki that is never going to be moved to an official Wikimedia domain. Angela.

On 11/14/05, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: The original poker request said it was aimed at the community at http://www.twoplustwo.com and specifically said "this project will only seek to involve content that would be out of Wikipedia's scope". A wiki where poker players can share tips, or write about specific non-notable games they've played doesn't fit in with anything Wikimedia is likely to do, in my opinion.

No, the WikiLab at scratchpad.wikicities.com is a Wikicity. What is currently called "Seed Wiki" on meta would be the Wikimedia version of this, though hopefully will more of a policy of what was allowed to be there.

Yes, but it should only facilitate it for things the community actually want there, not everything someone thinks would make a good wiki. There are hundreds of wiki ideas that are rejected even from Wikicities. If you look a wikifarm with no policy, like pbwiki.com, you'll see the sort of content I'm concerned about ending up on this "seed wiki" if people think it is a general dumping ground rather than something where the project proposals need to be community approved.

This was my concern *if* the site was going to be set up without any policies on what content should be there (which luckily isn't the case now that people are discussing these policies on meta). Without those policies, it wouldn't only be a fork of Wikicities, but of any wiki hosting project / wikifarm. Angela.

Anthony DiPierro wrote: The process should be that difficult. The impetus for new projects seems to be more often a reflection of people's inability or unwillingness to look for compromise solutions; it has very little to do with an objective need for another project. One starts from Wikipedia with its set of fundamental principles. A new project should first of all have a motivation based on a variance of one of those fundamental principles. The first spin-off was Meta which when I first joined was promoted as a place where one could engage in POV rants that could not be allowed on Wikipedia. Wiktionary was a response to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Wikibooks was intended for books (not necessarily strictly *text*books) which required that a subject be treated with more depth than would be possible in an encyclopedia; I've always believed that the "No original research" could be a little more relaxed in a Wikibooks context. The answer to deletionist controversies should not always be to establish a new project; it should lie in an attempt to find common ground. That's something which a certain cadre of people on Wikipedia refuses to seriously consider. I don't know what rules the Wikijunior people have been violating in Wikibooks, but that is an omnous claim. It seems to reflect the usual dynamic conflict between those who want clarity and certainty, and those who treasure innovation as a primary value. A project has a serious problem when either of those two gains dominance. Once established I believe in the autonomy of the separate projects, but they still need to have an understanding of where they come from. Autonomy should not be an excuse for excluding what might otherwise be allowed, but this is an extremely difficult problem which can only be addressed with a lot of goowill. Ec

I'd prefer *any* free phone book to the proprietary ones out there now, so I don't think it'd be hard to do better than the commercial companies. Yes, the copyright on this information is legally shaky, but EULAs and DRM usually fills those gaps.

Anthony DiPierro wrote: The copyright issue might not be such a big problem. It's the mind-numbing tedium of writing a phone book that turns me off. But then if we have enough minds that are numb enough, maybe they should go for it. :-) Ec

The answer to deletionist controversies should not always be to establish a new project; it should lie in an attempt to find common ground. That's something which a certain cadre of people on Wikipedia refuses to seriously consider. I don't know what rules the Wikijunior people have been violating in Wikibooks, but that is an omnous claim. It seems to reflect the usual dynamic conflict between those who want clarity and certainty, and those who treasure innovation as a primary value. A project has a serious problem when either of those two gains dominance.

As for the guidelines being decided on meta rather than Wikibooks, I don't see why that really matters, but at the same time it probably wouldn't be hard to convince people to move the discussions. community in the first place, sans Wikijunior. If that's true maybe that's part of the problem. Anthony

> Anyway, I can't edit on meta, and you seem to have a much different > idea of an incubator wiki anyway. Besides, the idea has been floating > around for months already. The cynic in me thinks that the red tape > to create a project is probably too great, especially a project which > threatens to "end up being a fork of" Angela's website.

Ray Saintonge wrote: The problem with Wikiversity and Wikijunior is that they should have been new proposed Wikimedia projects instead of something different. Wikijunior, IMHO, was "forced" upon Wikibooks, and with the plan to turn Wikijunior more into a kids version of Wikipedia, the connection with Wikibooks is far less than what it could have been in the past. Wikijunior is precisely what the seed wiki would be about... to get a community going on a concept and see if there will be some viability for keeping that community going. Many Wikicities projects only last a few weeks or months before they die out, and it would be a good idea to see if that would happen before something gets the status of a full Wikimedia sister project. This seed wiki can provide that objective view about some project idea. Why Wikijunior in particular is a part of this discussion is because it is an objective example of what kind of project could be started on the seed wiki. It should have started on a seed wiki rather than on Wikibooks, especially with the Beck Foundation grant and other issues that still have yet to be explained fully within the Wikijunior community, and some significant policy differences between Wikijunior and Wikibooks. I also have my doubts as to if Wikijunior could in fact get the necessary participation criteria, but I'm willing to wait and see.

Wikijunior, IMHO, was "forced" upon Wikibooks, and with the plan to turn Wikijunior more into a kids version of Wikipedia, the connection with Wikibooks is far less than what it could have been in the past.

Wikijunior is not just another Wikibook on Wikibooks. If the Wikibooks community decided to VfD Wikijunior, there would be a torrent of hate e-mail on this list and elsewhere that would only be equal to what happened to Wikiversity.

And that would have nothing to do with the quality of the material but because of the way that the project started. Again I add that Wikibooks should not be the incubator wiki, unless that is precisely the role that the Wikimedia Foundation board wants it to become.

Wikijunior was added to Wikibooks as if Wikibooks was the incubator wiki, and it should have been a new project proposal on Meta instead. That such proposals seemingly never get approval is a reason why nobody wants to throw an idea into that dustpile of ideas and instead try to sneak the projects through a back door like Wikijunior has done.

Wikijunior is a set of textbooks for kids. Textbooks are developed at Wikibooks, so having a separate place to develop textbooks for kids would be infringing on the Wikibooks mandate and forking that project.

While there are textbooks on Wikibooks, it is far more than that if you have paid attention to the community there at all. Wikibooks is about non-fiction books, and that takes many very unique forms.

Daniel Mayer wrote: Wikipedia is also a non-fiction book, however.

--- Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Both are true. Also, a collection of articles does not a book make. You can bind them together and present them like a book, but they will never be something that somebody is going to read cover to cover in sequence. Articles are self-contained entities that stand perfectly well on their own. Pages or even chapters in a book should be part a much larger self-contained work that itself has a specific goal on where it wants to lead the reader. -- mav

Anthony DiPierro wrote: Having Wikibooks absorb Wikipedia sounds like some kind of reverse takeover. It doesn't make sense. Ec

Anthony DiPierro wrote: 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

Why not simply moving them to some other place instead of outright deleting? This is a waste.

On 11/17/05, Sam Korn &lt;smoddy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Well, I don't know, but since they are being deleted because of a policy that, I understand, is stil debated, it shouldn't be difficult to find some temporary storage. Alfio

Ray Saintonge wrote: 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.

The big deal right now is that if we follow this general policy to its ultimate conclusion, about half of the current content on Wikibooks needs to be removed somehow. Of particular note is the Computer Gaming Guides bookshelf, which are not precisely textbooks but are an interesting sub-community on Wikibooks.

Jimbo. It is hard to tell him no, he is wrong, especially when he was so specific on the topic.

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.

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.

"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 agree that Wikibooks doesn't need such books, and I'm sure you were embarassed to see it. But that doesn't mean you need to ban the person who added it.

Jimmy Wales wrote: 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. 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.

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

Anthere wrote: I agree with Anthere that recipes can quite properly go into the encyclopedia, but this is a battle we lost a long time ago. To my knowledge, there is no one supporting the idea that the cookbook should be removed from wikibooks.

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 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.

So, do you have a personal beef against [[b:User:Zondor]]?

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.