>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).
Yeah, yeah !!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[The post that I'm replying to appeared on <wikiEN-L>.
Replies whould go to <textbook-L.>]
Anthere wrote in part:
>Maveric149 wrote:
>>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.
>There are some aspects, even of technical education,
>that require understanding of politics, that require
>ethical information. A book limiting itself to the
>pure technical gestures to apply is *bad*. Very bad.
>This is particularly true in the biological domain you
>cite. Teaching abortion just from the technical
>procedure is an error. If only because abortion is
>allowed in some places, not allowed in others, and
>this should be known. Also because an abortion is a
>terrible act for most women to undergo, and *no*
>doctor should know it only from the tech point of
>view. He should be aware of the psychological impact
>of such a gesture, if he wants to propose and to
>proceed with such an act with the physical and
>psychological consent of the mother-to-be. Also
>because he should be aware of all the limits to such
>an act from a religious point of view.
Medical ethics is important in medical education.
Thus any medical textbook should speak of (or refer to)
discussion of the ethical concerns of a controversial procedure.
Abortion definitely qualifies for this
(even though /I/ have no ethical concerns about it).
>Offering bare technical teaching is wrong.
>Similarly, in agriculture, it makes no sense to *just*
>understand how fertilization works, if you do not
>understand the pollution it creates, the CAP rules
>about N uses and the incentives. Just providing the
>tech info is just giving enough information for
>survival, not for thinking and making good decisions.
Similarly, the potential pollutive effects of agriculture
are necessary for any complete education in agriculture
(although I don't know if there's a professional history of this
as there is in the case of medicine).
These examples are not the same thing as creationism.
-- Toby
IMO writing a textbook (which I have done, on a very small scale;
nothing to buy in a shop;-) takes a more organized approach than
wikipedia. If we just start writing like on the 'pedia, we'll recreate
it. So, what we need is
* Structure
By which I mean a table of content. That can be altered, fine-tuned and
subdivided during writing, but we need a structured
* list of topics
to cover. *Then*, we can start filling in the pages. Because unlike
wikipedia, where everyone writes about a random topic and interconnects
it with the rest, there has to be a "what we want, what we need" kind of
thing.
As Karl and others already said, we'll need to create "stable" versions.
This is something any software developer should be used to. Therefore,
we have to say, at some point, "this is complete". That could be a fixed
date, but I think it will be hard to meet a deadline in a wiki environment.
So, my suggestion is that we freeze the table of contents (TOC) instead.
It could still be open for minor adjustments, but we should decide early
about
* what our first release should cover
We should keep track of the status of each page on both its talk page
and the TOC. I'd say if you find a page to be OK for release, you add
your signature to the talk page. If you're the third (or tenth;-) to
sign, you put an "OK" on the TOC at that topic.
Once all topics are marked OK, we take a few days going through it again
(here we could set a deadline!), then dump the whole thing into HTML
pages (I can do that, if you like), and put it somewhere (as an online
or ZIPped HTML collection, as RTF, PDF, or whatever).
Karl mentioned scattered attempts for free non-wiki textbooks on the
web. Once the site is up, we should try to go through these web pages
and ask the authors to join us, or to release their attempts under GFDL.
This could be organized on the site so we don't bother the same guy 20
times (like "declined", "donated his texts", "joined" etc.)
One more thing (more like a personal request): I would like to limit
editing to logged-in people only. Now calm down, I don't try to rip the
wiki principle apart. I just think that since this will be a more
organized effort than wikipedia, and as I'd rather not spent my time
cleaning up vandals on the textbook wiki all the time as well, I think
it might be a good idea to prevent bypassing vandals from inserting "yo
mom's stupid". Everyone would be free to get a user account, just like
on wikipedia. Just an extension: "You can edit this page right now. Just
get a free user account first". People who'd like to invest serious time
here will most certainly do that.
Magnus
Hey LDan,
Thanks for your comments.
I agree completely that we will need some kind of mechanism
to make a static version of a textbook for it to be used in
a classroom setting.
An early brainstorm that I had was to make a special
service for this purpose, where an individual teacher could
take a "public" version of a wiki textbook and make it into
a limited-editability version for their class. So for that
subset of the information, anyone else could see and copy
the text materials but to modify it would have to set it up
in a different spot. Thats one way I imagined that we could
give a bit of stability to the prof ... my dad is an
educator so I know how much teachers and schools demand
control over their materials, especially in the k-12.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
On the English mailing list it was suggested that we would
be developing static textbooks from dynamic Wikipedia
resources. I'd like to talk about that because I dont think
that is how it will be ...
I see the textbooks growing the same way WP grows .. first
to get the basic information in there and then to modify
that information to make it easier to understand and to
include the changes and advancements in each field. Then,
multiple textbooks could arise on one subject but with
different goals or target audiences.
The textbooks will be able to use some WP material but
probably in modified form to suit the different goals. Plus
the textbooks will need lots of original material that was
not at home in the encyclopedia format and/or has not yet
been developed.
A couple of goals:
I think that we will see our first adoption by students who
are looking for quick free information. In time, my hope is
that we will have materials so good that they will be used
officially in schools to accompany and then replace
traditional textbook materials.
This site should be the center on the WWW for collaborative
textbook development. I have seen some scattered efforts to
do free textbooks out there but none (but --April's) using
a wiki. I think if we give them a place and make it
friendly that people will use it and our site will grow to
be the standard setter. So lets make it friendly to
teachers and other people who can be power contributers.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Hey Brion,
Are you the person who will do the grunt work to open up
the http://textbook.wikipedia.org subdomain ? If so, do you
have an idea of when we could expect it ?
Thank you,
Karl
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Hi, I am the guy who made the initial request to open up a
spot on Wikipedia for textbook development. I have a
physics book I am writing and want to donate and probably
give a good start to an organic text as well.
Text of an email I just sent to Mav, who asked me to sent
it thru the mailing list:
It seems like some people on the mailing list want things
defined real well from the onset. Is that necessary or can
we just wing it and develop policies as time and need
warrant ?
I had the idea that textbooks could be started as units
with a defined goal and audience. For example, my physics
book could be designated as an introductory college-level
text suitable for pre-meds.
I am imagining the textbook development as beginning
general and moving towards specific, as one basic "unified"
text for each discipline that eventually differentiates
into multiple books over time. Books for more narrowly
defined audiences, levels, goals, study guides, etc. Since
textbooks have a voice could we not allow this to happen
naturally and even allow multiple voices ?
My opinion is that rules and regs should be a bit lax on
the textbook subdomain until needed ... I agree that NPOV
should not be required .. there is also an issue that
authors styles can be quite different, some study guides
even use little jokes to help you remember information.
And one unrelated question: Do you have an idea of
copyright issues, specifically, if I use the chapter
structure of an existing book written by another author for
a Wiki book or is that infringement ? I am imagining I
could lift the overall structure from one of my old orgo
textbooks for the basis of a book on O Chem ..I read that
the information itself is not under copyright, just the
"creative presentation" of it. Do you happen to know where
the chips would fall in this case ?
Thanks,
Karl
PS Thank you for your support of the wiki textbook concept
..
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karlwick
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com