[Foundation-l] Stategic planning : Sharing textbook knowledge

Samuel Klein meta.sj at gmail.com
Fri May 8 20:33:55 UTC 2009

david gerard writes:
> No, no. All wikiprojects could be merged into *Wikibooks* if one were
> so inclined. The encyclopedia is clearly only one book in the library,
> it's just by far the biggest one.

Indeed.  Or into Wiktionary, since it's all just a matter of defining
in detail various keywords, stemwords, and phrases.

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:

>> Certainly not zero.  Perhaps 10%?  Neither textbooks nor wikipedia are
>> normally designed to give a total soup-to-nuts explanation of how to
>> do something.
> Ha.
> [[Wikibooks:Constructing an Industrial Civilisation from Scratch]].

You are stopping at industrial civilisation why?

> ==Chapter 1: on flint nodules==
> ==Chapter 307: smelting copper==
> ==Chapter 87,823: the basics of nuclear fission==
> I love it as an intellectual exercise, but the plausible *utility* of
> the whole thing might be open to question!

Precisely how I felt about the idea of a million-articles Wikipedia
many years ago.  Once a thing has been done once, it's easier to see
the value in iteration.  I don't doubt the utility of the above for an
instance, nor that it would be used year to year, and not primarily as
a 'disaster recovery' mechanism.  I think this is a non-linear
approach to capturing practical knowledge that will deprecate
standalone texts and manuals.

At any rate, we have a very basic idea of what kinds of
massively-parallel tasks we can learn how to do.  We should be
actively exploring what else we can learn as a group.


ps - All the Weyrs of Pern is a nice ref.  There is non-fiction
specifically for disaster recovery and making anything you might need
while on a space shuttle.  Most are focused on crafts and engineering,
however.  Figuring out how to cull the data for and publish the
Transparent Hand also comes to mind.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list