Jimbo wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> The reason why our encyclopedias
>> have to be NPOV is because our
>> audience is a general one. The
>> reason why our textbooks have to
>> be DPOV is because our audience is
>> very focused (the biology student,
>> for example) and we need to bring
>> that student through the material
>> in a logical and efficient way.
>
>Hmmm, don't be so quick to dismiss
>NPOV in this context. Consider:
>
>1. Within various disciplines there
> are legitimate and ongoing disputes
> of which students should be made aware.
Yes, exactly. But our current NPOV policy states that
we should include all major viewpoints in a neutral
manor (notice the lack of focus). This makes perfect
sense in an general focus encyclopedia but doesn't
make much sense in a textbook. I was planning all
along to take the NPOV text and make some minor
qualifications in reference to the scope under which
the new policy (DPOV) would operate.
>2. If "outside" views are likely to
> be encountered by students, then students
> should be made aware of them, including
> the weakness in their arguments.
It depends on the focus of the particular course you
are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't
spend too much time defending the underlying premise
that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution).
There is a great deal of material to get through and
therefore the arguments of creationism needn't be
given much space or much credibility in such a
textbook. However, if we can figure out how to
organize chapters into modules then we can potentially
create a very wide-foccused (and huge) textbook
reference edition on all aspects of biology (including
many counter-arguments to evolution and alternate
interpretations of other aspects). That way
instructors would be able to assemble textbooks from
these modules into a variety of different
configurations with each having a different emphasis
(there would have to be a core set of modules that
would form the foundation and framework of the
textbook though).
>> Same thing is true for a section of a
>> medical textbook on abortion ; we leave
>> out most of the history and the different
>> political views on the subject and just
>> talk about the procedure itself and maybe
>> have a single paragraph at the end sating
>> something about access to the procedure
>> and that risks doctors face when they
>> choose to specialize in this area.
>
>Right, but that's not POV-editing, that's
>just restricting topical focus. Here's how
>to tell -- an article which describes the
>procedure neutrally (and in medical detail,
>say) could be agreed upon by all reasonable
>people, regardless of their political or
>ethical views on the matter.
Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
focus; that was my point. It reads in part "A general
purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized
knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To
whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should
steer clear of taking any particular stance other than
the stance of the neutral point of view." Simply
replacing "encyclopedia" with "textbook" will not do
for a textbook editing policy. If NPOV (as written)
were applied to the evolution chapter of the above
biology textbook example then we would have to present
creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with the
viewpoints of biologists. This is not acceptable when
trying to explain evolution in a biology textbook
because no serious biologist gives any credence to
anti-evolution ideas. But NPOV can and should be
applied to the major viewpoints that exist from within
the biological sciences. There could still be optional
modules that deal with the viewpoints of society as a
whole - the larger debate (so that the same textbook
could be used in a class that deals with those types
of issues). The core modules need to be very specific
in focus, though. Otherwise students won't know what
to think (yes, part of education is indoctrination
into the POV of a discipline).
So yes, we can write about the current understanding
of what evolution is and how it is theorized to
operate but we cannot mix that with creationism
viewpoints in the same module. So a modified NPOV
("DPOV") would need to operate in a compartmentalized
fashion; within a core module it operates from within
the context of whatever discipline the textbook is
being written for; but in an optional module it can
operate with a wider focus (although most optional
modules are going to be more detailed treatments of
certain topics raised in a core module). In short, the
goals of what each module needs to do need to be
focused. That requires restricting NPOV to that
context.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
LDan wrote:
>I'm not the programmer, but
>should it really be a link to a
>regular wiki page? I think it
>would be more appropriate
>if it linked to something like
>[[Special:Next]] or {{NEXTPAGE}}.
>It would also be convienient for
>that to appear at the bottom of
>the screen automatically, but that
>would take some coding.
I really, really like this idea; that way a particular module (wiki textbook
page) could be used by several different textbooks. The software would keep
track of the textbook (and module) the reader is reading from so that "Next
page" always keeps the reader in the same textbook even when many of the
modules of that textbook are shared. A possible way for the software to know
the order of pages is to simply scan the table of contents of whatever
textbook the reader is reading from.
A website I've been working on uses JavaBeans to do this type of thing but I'm
sure there is an open source solution.
In short: Hard coding "Next page" is bad as far as scalability is concerned
(but for now it should work fine).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>I thought the reason for a textbook was for it to be
>linear. Otherwise, people could just use the
>encyclopedia.
The preliminary OChem book I am playing with has trains of
continuity, although they are more flexible than in a
printed book. Its a flexibility to link to all related
subjects that I wish the textbooks that I use had. I dont
think that most people would confuse an interlinked
textbook with an encyclopedia, as a textbook seeks to
actively teach, where an encyclopedia presents information
more passively. Plus there is an overlying scheme of nested
links that adds structure. But thats just how I see this
book on this subject turning out right now, and is no
comment on any other book or any other way or etc.
I guess a textbook as I see it should help lead a person
thru the subject even if it gives him freedom to change
direction. Isnt learning more fun for you as a learner when
you have some say on how you do it ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Here is a link to a group in CA that is working to make
open content that it can license to other states with the
goal of cutting K-12 textbook prices by 33-50%.
http://www.opensourcetext.org/
It sounds like they are creating content that they will
print up in hard copies for distribution or be the basis
for derivative hard copy works.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
If the main reason to have a required sign-in for page
editing is to fight against vandals, is there another
solution that would have the same benefits without the
drawbacks ? The idea springs to mind to have a quick
administrative function to revert to earlier page versions.
It sounds like currently it is a hassle to revert
vandalized pages. Is this true ? Would it be possible and
reasonable to develop a one-click page revert function for
admins ?
I like the idea of making every textbook compilable into
one printable document. Would it be feasible to add the
feature to change the default order of book sections ? In
my organic chemistry books the total content covered is the
same but the order in which it is presented is not, and
some professors and students prefer one order to another.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
IN a textbook I could see a place for some small flash
animations, for example to represent some organic
reactions. I poked around the site but found nothing
difinitive, except a lack of mention of flash usage. Could
using flash animations in some contexts be a viable option
?
Karl
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Karl wrote:
>IN a textbook I could see a place for some small
>flash animations, for example to represent some
>organic reactions. I poked around the site but
>found nothing definitive, except a lack of mention
>of flash usage. Could using flash animations
>in some contexts be a viable option?
Heavens no! Macromedia Flash is a proprietary software
program that users would have to install separately
from their browser. In many cases this is difficult or
impossible (thinking of Linux and other
non-MS/non-Apple OSes). Animated GIFs are much better
because they work in nearly every browser without
requiring the user to install a plug-in. But all GIFs
have possible patent issues and are therefore not a
great option either. Hopefully MNG (the animated
version of the open source PNG image format) will be
supported by IE soon (users of IE need to install a
plug-in to see these last time I checked). Heck I say
we should use MNG for the textbooks since by the time
any one textbook gets any type of attention IE will
probably be able to display MNG animations out of the
box.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Toby wrote:
>Maveric149 wrote in part:
>
>>IMO it would also make it much
>>less obvious that anyone /can/
>>edit any page just by logging-in
>>-- all they would see was "Protected
>>page" where the edit button should
>>be and "Log-in." That doesn't make
>>it obvious we are a wiki, no?
>
>If we require /everybody/ to log in, then
>it shouldn't say that. It should say "'''Edit
>this page'''" with a nice bright link -- that
>sends them to the log in page (returning
>to the edit page).
That is a bit misleading, no? I've had this trick played on me many times by
clicking on a link that indicates there is content behind it just to be
presented with a "free-registration" screen. My time is precious to me and
when I'm presented with the reg screen I almost always hit the back button.
Likewise many people who just want to test the system by correcting a typo
will be put-off by the reg screen; we thus loose the opportunity to snag
another editor.
The NY Times does this type of thing and as a result I never read it on-line.
If and when "anon edits" become a problem then we can think about restricting
things (IMO this will never be a serious enough problem to warrent such
action).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Toby wrote:
>But anyway, I doubt that DPOV
>will ever be written up. Jimmy invented
>NPOV, and he says that NPOV includes
>what mav wants.
>
>If anything happens, it's that [[NPOV]]
>will have to be clarified. But since Jimmy
>also keeps agreeing with my
>intepretations of it, I see no risk that
>any such clarification will threaten your
>book. The only alternative is that Jimmy's
>opinions are incoherent, but nobody is
>arguing that.
Yep - all I ever really wanted was to clarify NPOV to suit the needs of
textbooks (to give it a new framework or focus to work in - I mistakingly
called that "POV"). I was just trying to be clear by giving it a new name but
Jimbo has convinced me that the needed changes are not drastic enough to
warrent a new name. It will just be the "textbook's version of NPOV."
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)