[Textbook-l] No new wikis

[Daniel Mayer]

Erik wrote:
>The fundamentals of the [textbook] project (what 
>kind of material is to be placed there; do we need 
>a textbook project or should it be part of a larger  
>project) were not discussed much, 

What kind of material? I don't understand that part of your statement. A 
textbook is a way to organize non-fictional information in a way that can be 
used to lead a student through that information. Given the vast number of 
courses we could make textbooks for I fail to see how that is too specific.

>the specifics (how to write textbooks NPOV etc.) 
>were discussed in great detail. I don't remember 
>a timetable or a deadline for suggestions ever 
>being brought up.

? Was there for Wikipedia? This type of micromanagement can kill volunteer 
projects.

>But what about HOWTOs and manuals of all 
>kinds? 

Why not? That seems similar enough for me. I think you are reading too much 
into the temporary name of the project. 

>These are not textbooks. Yet, the two have 
>similarities in style, and both are at least  
>in part procedural knowledge. 

I agree and would like to add that much of the current "How-tos" in Wikipedia 
should be moved. 

>The name "textbook" usually implies use in  
>an educational setting. Yet much of the material 
>that is currently there is also of interest outside 
>such use. 

Symantics. Wikipedia is far more than just an encyclopedia too (it is also an 
almanac and gazetteer; not to mention an encyclopedia of encylopedias). Same 
goes for Wiktionary (which is also a thesaurus, and translating dictionary). 

>IMHO "textbook" is too limited. It only encourages 
>the creation of yet another spin-off project in the 
>near future for other types of non-fictional works.

Like what? I already mentioned that how-tos can be reformatted into 
courses/textbooks. Big deal. We instruct = Wikinstruct (possible name that 
doesn't include "textbook"). 

>What I would prefer is a  
>structure like this:
>
>        encyclopedia
>        dictionary
>        non-fictional works (books.wikipedia.org)
>        fictional works     (tales.wikipedia.org)

? Why the Wikipedia.org sub-domains? I already own wikibook.org/.com and that 
can be used for any miscellaneous project that is in book form (that is, any 
project requiring a specific overall organization for each of its books).  
Wiktion might be a fun name for a wiki fiction project (or else it goes at 
fiction.wikibook.org). 

>....And a place to write all types of non-fictional 
>works may be better than just a place to write  
>textbooks -- the procedures for writing textbooks 
>are in part specific, but in large part also applicable 
>to writing other non-fictional works.

If the needs of a particular project require separation then let's provide it. 
Having a project that is so broad that is has no focus is also a realy bad 
thing (Everything2 plays that role already).

>Many templates we successfully use on the 'pedia 
>were worked out that way. 

Partly true - the WikiProjects always use at least one real article as a test 
case but then many modifications are made as that template is applied to 
other articles - the template evolves. But a WikiProject is a far cry from a 
new Wikimedia project (which has a vastly larger focus).

>I have nothing against a little chaos, but Wiktionary 
>had far too much of it for my taste. The chaos and 
>ugliness on Wiktionary, the lack of any real leadership 
>was what discouraged me from working on that project.

Different strokes for different folks. Some people like chaos and newness - 
let them work out the rough spots and you can join later when the project has 
more or less stabilized. 

>Can you name a single idea that would not benefit 
>from prior discussion?

That wasn't my point - in fact I agreed that some discussion is a good thing. 
But I am a bit skeptical that we need to have so much of the ground work 
settled before actually working on the project. Too much planning for a 
project is like the birth of Athena in which she sprung forth from the head 
of Zeus fully-grown, educated and in full battle armor - what a headache. 

I prefer a more organic approach in which the rules are made based on actual 
experience on what does and does not work. Yeah, of course, some basic 
parameters should be decided before that but those should be minimal. 

--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)