This sounds like a project on Wikibooks - more or less writing textbooks. Is there more to it than that?
Yes, there is. Firstly, it's on a rather specific theme - and a very wide range of businesses. Just like an encyclopedia is a set of books, any information could be packaged as such. But this is not meant as course material for a school or university. It is meant as a set of work manuals.
As such, each manual must cover information in a consistent way. The same set of headings, the same way of detailing information.
More importantly, every input that is required for a business is the product of another business. So too with every output. These inputs and outputs can be tracked to create a webwork showing the interaction of different businesses (slightly different from just a set of textbooks). This also allows for the tracking of required infrastructure and support.
So, if I want to start a grain mill, then there have to be farms nearby. There also needs to be transport, harvesting, maintenance for the mill. If there is no electricity, then that changes the type of mill I can operate. And so on. It provides insight into limiting factors preventing targetted industries from getting off the ground (inputs unavailable) while providing the necessary info on how to get input industries up and running.
Just as helpful is that the outputs must have a market. No good producing plastic bottles if no-one wants to use them.
This is very helpful for people looking for gaps in the market but who aren't sure if it is worthwhile or what supply and demand is required. Products have direct and indirect markets. For example: rubber washers are used to make wheels in crafted wire cars; old wooden palattes (from the logistics industry) are broken down to make prefabricated walls for houses. Each topic can give novel ideas for inputs and outputs that may extend products into new industries.
Each topic covers the necessary inputs, outputs - and how to get from the one to the other.
In the long term it will become possible to develop a simple checklist to ascertain what gaps exist for what opportunities (similar to the way biologists have a species identification system: does it have this type of leaf, go to pg 73, does it have these nodules? .... until you get to a specific set of possibilities).
This project is distinct. Otherwise one could argue that wikibooks is just another permutation of wikipedia.
Regards,
Gavin
Wikibooks are on a specific theme. Work manuals can make good Wikibooks. And Wikibooks, whether single or in a series, can be made consistent, with the same set of headings and the same way of detailing information. I just can't see any reason to make this a seperate wiki - it'd just be a wikibook that we decided to promote above all the others, which isn't fair.
-- ambi
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:36:06 +0200, Gavin Chait gchait@gmx.net wrote:
This sounds like a project on Wikibooks - more or less writing textbooks. Is there more to it than that?
Yes, there is. Firstly, it's on a rather specific theme - and a very wide range of businesses. Just like an encyclopedia is a set of books, any information could be packaged as such. But this is not meant as course material for a school or university. It is meant as a set of work manuals.
As such, each manual must cover information in a consistent way. The same set of headings, the same way of detailing information.
More importantly, every input that is required for a business is the product of another business. So too with every output. These inputs and outputs can be tracked to create a webwork showing the interaction of different businesses (slightly different from just a set of textbooks). This also allows for the tracking of required infrastructure and support.
So, if I want to start a grain mill, then there have to be farms nearby. There also needs to be transport, harvesting, maintenance for the mill. If there is no electricity, then that changes the type of mill I can operate. And so on. It provides insight into limiting factors preventing targetted industries from getting off the ground (inputs unavailable) while providing the necessary info on how to get input industries up and running.
Just as helpful is that the outputs must have a market. No good producing plastic bottles if no-one wants to use them.
This is very helpful for people looking for gaps in the market but who aren't sure if it is worthwhile or what supply and demand is required. Products have direct and indirect markets. For example: rubber washers are used to make wheels in crafted wire cars; old wooden palattes (from the logistics industry) are broken down to make prefabricated walls for houses. Each topic can give novel ideas for inputs and outputs that may extend products into new industries.
Each topic covers the necessary inputs, outputs - and how to get from the one to the other.
In the long term it will become possible to develop a simple checklist to ascertain what gaps exist for what opportunities (similar to the way biologists have a species identification system: does it have this type of leaf, go to pg 73, does it have these nodules? .... until you get to a specific set of possibilities).
This project is distinct. Otherwise one could argue that wikibooks is just another permutation of wikipedia.
Regards,
Gavin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Rebecca (misfitgirl@gmail.com) [050201 10:34]:
Wikibooks are on a specific theme. Work manuals can make good Wikibooks. And Wikibooks, whether single or in a series, can be made consistent, with the same set of headings and the same way of detailing information. I just can't see any reason to make this a seperate wiki - it'd just be a wikibook that we decided to promote above all the others, which isn't fair.
Unless it's Wikipedia, which is fair cos it's by far the hugest wiki book!
- d.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:47:51 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Rebecca (misfitgirl@gmail.com) [050201 10:34]:
Wikibooks are on a specific theme. Work manuals can make good Wikibooks. And Wikibooks, whether single or in a series, can be made consistent, with the same set of headings and the same way of detailing information. I just can't see any reason to make this a seperate wiki - it'd just be a wikibook that we decided to promote above all the others, which isn't fair.
Unless it's Wikipedia, which is fair cos it's by far the hugest wiki book!
Or wiktionary.Or wikiquote...
Wikibooks was set up to be the home of textbooks. Not books, but Textbooks. Hence why wikpedia, wiktionary and wikiquote are not on wikibooks (other than historical accident). I really dont think it is fair to the wikibooks community, that we tell every new wikiproject to go set up on wikibooks. Its in risk of becoming the wikimedia dumping ground. Either we need to start telling people, go set up on wikicities, so we can see what happens and then if we like it we might invite you into the wikimedia family (as Jimbo has suggested) or create a wikilabs (as me and sj have suggested). There are lots of things of wikibooks right now that shouldnt be there. Take the cookbook for example; some wikipedians decided the content wasn't appropriate for wikipedia, so they pushed it off into wikibooks, despite it not being a textbook. The gardening book aswell. This is really the same as saying i dont want to throw this out, and i dont want to keep it, so ill just put it all in the backyard shed and pretend its not there.
I personaly think that something like the cookbook, or the gardening book should have thier own wikis, and also another wiki with the working title DIYwiki, should be set up. The DIY wiki would not have text books, but rather could house lots of the stuff that is currently on wikibooks, but shouldnt be. Like the bycycle repair book. The computer repair book. First Aid etc, plus the possiblity for many many more. I believe that this wiki should not be made up os "books" like wikibooks, but be more like wikipedia in style. For example: it would be [[drainage ditch]] not [[farming:drainage ditch]] (wikibooks style). The article would be a couple of sections # Intro paragraph on what drainage ditches are, where and how they are used # TOC # How to build a dranage ditch ## Method 1 ## Method 2 ### Minor variation on Method 2 ## Method 3 # How to repair a drainage ditch ## Method 1 # Other Important notes on drainage ditches # Further Reading # References
/me puts on asbestos underware. so what do you all think?
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
Wikibooks was set up to be the home of textbooks. Not books, but Textbooks. Hence why wikpedia, wiktionary and wikiquote are not on wikibooks (other than historical accident). I really dont think it is fair to the wikibooks community, that we tell every new wikiproject to go set up on wikibooks. Its in risk of becoming the wikimedia dumping ground. Either we need to start telling people, go set up on wikicities, so we can see what happens and then if we like it we might invite you into the wikimedia family (as Jimbo has suggested) or create a wikilabs (as me and sj have suggested).
I'm not suggesting to use Wikibooks as an incubator, in advance of giving a project like this full status. I'm suggesting to make it what it is: a Wikibook about business (it *is* a textbook - even if it isn't aimed at a scholarly audience). It shouldn't *be* a specific wiki - the Wikispecies crew browbeat the board into setting a particularly bad precedent, and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Let us not make the same mistake again.
There are lots of
things of wikibooks right now that shouldnt be there. Take the cookbook for example; some wikipedians decided the content wasn't appropriate for wikipedia, so they pushed it off into wikibooks, despite it not being a textbook. The gardening book aswell. This is really the same as saying i dont want to throw this out, and i dont want to keep it, so ill just put it all in the backyard shed and pretend its not there.
We can always take Wikimedia in new directions, and I laud such proposals, but I strongly despise these subject-specific works. They have limited potential in terms of both readers and participation, are much less likely to be successful, and would really be much better suited to, say, setting up a MediaWiki installation on a business website. Just because it is a wiki doesn't mean that it has to be under the Wikimedia banner.
They're something altogether different from projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource and Wikinews - which are Wikimedia's mainstay. I think a strong case could be made that Wikicookbook would fall into the first category, but Wikineur (and the disheartening plague of similar proposals appearing recently) fall well into the second.
I personaly think that something like the cookbook, or the gardening book should have thier own wikis, and also another wiki with the working title DIYwiki, should be set up.
I still can't see why it wouldn't just be a Wikibook with a less scholarly focus. Vocational education can require textbooks, too.
-- ambi
Wikibooks was set up to be the home of textbooks. Not books, but Textbooks. Hence why wikpedia, wiktionary and wikiquote are not on wikibooks (other than historical accident). I really dont think it is fair to the wikibooks community, that we tell every new wikiproject to go set up on wikibooks. Its in risk of becoming the wikimedia dumping ground.
While I created the Wikibooks name based on a combination of WikiWiki and textbooks, that project has never been only about textbooks. It is a place to build just about any non-fiction reference book with, and this is critical, a finite end size (if you want to explore a subject area in more detail than that, start other books). The 'finite' part excludes potentially huge or even practically infinitely-sized things such as a general quote book, dictionary, or encyclopedia.
The very different formats for these other projects is also a reason for the separation; Modules in a wikibook need to be in in a hierarchy and should ideally be read in a particular sequence, while articles in Wikipedia and Wikiquote and entries at Wiktionary are anything but hierarchical and can be read in any order.
True, the emphasis is on instructional-oriented material, but that is an *emphasis* to encourage the most-potentially positive aspect of the project. It is ''not'' an exclusionary principle.
ambi wrote:
We can always take Wikimedia in new directions, and I laud such proposals, but I strongly despise these subject-specific works. They have limited potential in terms of both readers and participation, are much less likely to be successful, and would really be much better suited to, say, setting up a MediaWiki installation on a business website. Just because it is a wiki doesn't mean that it has to be under the Wikimedia banner.
I agree with this statement 100% and can't think of a thing to add.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Wikibooks was set up to be the home of textbooks. Not books, but Textbooks. Hence why wikpedia, wiktionary and wikiquote are not on wikibooks (other than historical accident). I really dont think it is fair to the wikibooks community, that we tell every new wikiproject to go set up on wikibooks. Its in risk of becoming the wikimedia dumping ground.
While I created the Wikibooks name based on a combination of WikiWiki and textbooks, that project has never been only about textbooks. It is a place to build just about any non-fiction reference book with, and this is critical, a finite end size (if you want to explore a subject area in more detail than that, start other books). The 'finite' part excludes potentially huge or even practically infinitely-sized things such as a general quote book, dictionary, or encyclopedia.
The very different formats for these other projects is also a reason for the separation; Modules in a wikibook need to be in in a hierarchy and should ideally be read in a particular sequence, while articles in Wikipedia and Wikiquote and entries at Wiktionary are anything but hierarchical and can be read in any order.
True, the emphasis is on instructional-oriented material, but that is an *emphasis* to encourage the most-potentially positive aspect of the project. It is ''not'' an exclusionary principle.
ambi wrote:
We can always take Wikimedia in new directions, and I laud such proposals, but I strongly despise these subject-specific works. They have limited potential in terms of both readers and participation, are much less likely to be successful, and would really be much better suited to, say, setting up a MediaWiki installation on a business website. Just because it is a wiki doesn't mean that it has to be under the Wikimedia banner.
I agree with this statement 100% and can't think of a thing to add.
-- mav
One way of dealing with this is by having it as a "Wikicities" project. If it pans out, it can always return into the wikimedia fold :) . Thanks, Gerard
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:03:49 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
One way of dealing with this is by having it as a "Wikicities" project. If it pans out, it can always return into the wikimedia fold :) .
Since many are regarding this as something suitable for Wikibooks, it would not be accepted at Wikicities unless the Wikibooks community expressly opposed it being part of their project.
However, there is now a Wikicities Scratchpad, which provides a place for rejected Wikicities, so if someone wants to create this as a temporary wiki on that site, they can do so. This might be a useful place for people to demonstrate what their proposal is in order to show people on this list whether or not the wiki does look right for Wikibooks.
http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/
Angela.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org