[Foundation-l] Re: Cleaning up Wikibooks

[kelvSYC]

> Any File wrote:
>
>> This definition is not only , in my opinion, not only cumbersome,
>> but also open a serious question: What is a textbook?
>>

It is a good question, and it seems like the original intent of  
Wikibooks was to restrict itself to some form of academia.  Then  
again, what that is is open to interpretation: for example, the  
English courses at my university requires you to buy six novels and a  
short story anthology, as they are "textbooks" in the sense of  
required reading material.  Some mathematics courses here, however,  
have a required textbook but is almost never used, so we can't really  
call it a textbook even though it's required material.  So how a book  
is used in any academic context is not part of the definition of a  
textbook.

If all else fails, let's look at Wikipedia's article on textbooks: A  
'''textbook''' is a [[manual]] of [[instruction]] or a standard  
[[book]] in any branch of [[study]].  Let's work off of that and find  
a good definition everyone can agree on.

>> Just as an example why a cookbook is not a textbook? In many school
>> cookbook are used as a textbook. Morover they are used in some small
>> lecture course about cooking.

The problem is that any culinary academy's textbooks will talk more  
about the techniques of cooking rather than simply be a repository  
for recipes.  Even my high school cooking textbook has absolutely  
zero recipes, as you were expected to come up with something on your  
own.  In comparison, Cookbook in Wikibooks is nothing but a recipe  
repository, at least in the eyes of the greater community, even if  
there is material on techniques.

> A joke book could be a text book for a writing course or a drama  
> course about stand-up comedy
>
>> And should the subject only be limited to normal subject textbook are
>> written about?

When a lot of people think about jokebooks, they think of stuff that  
is marketed for children as some form of fiction, not reference  
material.  I, for one, have not seen any jokebooks intended for adult  
audiences in the same vein (the large majority of them being comics  
and other satirical books, not like those Q and A ones for children).

Still, comedy theory, IMO, is something that is learned and not taught.

>> For instance there exist a lot of book about chess (and many of them
>> not only dealt about chess, but are even organized in lesson). Anyway
>> I have never seen a textbook about chess (because chess is not taught
>> at school).
>>
> There have beenany number of self-teaching books about chess.  One  
> type has you following a game, and rates you on the move that you  
> would make in any given position.  Chess may not be a part of the  
> standard curriculum in American high-schools, but there are private  
> schools and schools in other countries which consider chess an  
> important tool for developping critical thinking.
>

What do we consider a textbook?  Is "DOS for Dummies" a textbook?  Is  
"Teach Yourself SQL in 10 Minutes" a textbook?  Most of us think of  
it as reference material, and very few places I know about actually  
use it as teaching material.