This isn't exactly what we want (since only one index is allowed) but it may
give us some ideas (at the very least eliminate tendious hard coding of
naviagational links; which would have to be redone whenever a book is
reorganized).
As explained at http://www.pmichaud.com/wiki/PmWiki/WikiGroup
They have an index; here for example
http://www.pmichaud.com/wiki/PmWiki/DocumentationIndex
That is where they organize the different "WikiGroups" using a wiki-editable
index/TOC just like what Toby and I proposed.
Then, on one of the pages linked from the index you write:
%trail%<<|PmWiki.DocumentationIndex|>>
Which, for the WikiGroup page becomes;
<< WikiStructures | PmWiki.DocumentationIndex | Passwords >>
Now look at the index again;
http://www.pmichaud.com/wiki/PmWiki/DocumentationIndex
Notice WikiGroup is in between WikiStructures and Passwords?
Killer.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
>Copyright could be transferred to the Wikimedia
>Foundation. A disclaimer could be issued that states
>that the contributions always will be used in a free
>and open copyleft spirit.
Sounds like an interesting idea....
--mav
Karl Wick wrote:
>In case it escaped anyones attention:
>
>http://textbook.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry:Licenses
>
>Also, I followed the GNU FDL compatibility link and it
>didnt go anywhere, does anyone have the good link ?
>
>( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl/compatibility/ )
You /cannot/ create your own license terms Karl - until we resolve this issue
on the mailing list the /only/ terms that are to be followed are this;
Please note that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released
under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for
details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and
redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a
public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK
WITHOUT PERMISSION!
This is the only thing people agree to when submitting. Please see the talk
page. But you can certainly /ask/ other people who work on the organic
chemistry book whether or not they will also release their own work under
other licenses. However you cannot require them to do so.
We have always been able to /informally/ have disjoint licenses - you can
release all original work by yourself under any license you want. But what
licenses are enforced on the Wikimedia server is a matter of policy - which
we still are in the middle of debating.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
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)
Toby wrote:
>That's the whole point of my paragraph,
>which was an example of the sort of detail
>that we must think through. Because they
>might borrow from each other, they must
>switch over together.
That would require the permission of every copyright holder of the text. For
older textbooks or ones that incorporate a good deal of Wikipedia text this
will be impossible.
>I don't want to rely on that when submitting material
>that I write; I want it to be available to everybody (or
>as many as possible), not just to GNU FDL users.
Then on your user page state that everything you write that is not a
derivative work is under the CCSA or the public domain for that matter.
Each book will have to be under the GNU FDL, CCSA or a dual license. So
downstream users will still be limited; a downstream user wanting to
incorporate part of a CCSA Wikibook into their GNU FDL book will be blocked.
If however we continue to promote the use of the GNU FDL then that will
become the default free content license for everybody to use. We have already
uncovered a great many GFDLd textbooks so far.
>Not that I mean to criticise your idea entirely;
>we can refine it. And we should present it to
>RMS when we try to win him over. Unfortunately,
>I'm more convinced than ever that we never will,
I'll concede the point that this will be an uphill battle - but it will be a
battle worth fighting.
>That's also why text copied directly from WP won't
>usually be wanted in the first place.
I very seriously doubt that. I very often open up one of my many textbooks to
use as sources for a Wikipedia article. For example I opened by freshman
biology textbook to write [[centipede]]. I skipped to the right chapter and
found a description of the group as part of one section - I simply rewrote
it. In the reverse process all I would have to do is copy the Wikipedia
article and place it in that point of the textbook. I can go on and on with
many other examples where I have taken info from textbooks in similar chunks.
172 is also famous for doing this already /within/ Wikipedia. He likes to copy
text from several related articles and he intregrates into one overview
article that flows from point to point - just like a textbook. Check out the
[[History of the United States]] article to see what I mean (this style is
annoying in Wikipedia but would be most welcome in Wikibooks).
So a great many textbooks can at least be partially constructed by organizing
Wikipedia text.
>The main reason not to use the GNU FDL alone
>is -- and has been since Karl first brought it up --
>so that /other/ people will be able to use our work.
>We can't anticipate now whether GNU or CC is the future,
>so we should keep our work open to as much as possible.
>Using the GNU FDL only is a limit on future users' freedoms.
Again - each book has to choose one license or another (or dual). Each of the
singular options limits downstream usage to a single license path and the
dual option severely limits what can be used by the book itself.
We have already created an Empire with GNU FDL text - let's continue building
that Empire. We are big enough already that we can justify what we do simply
because we do it. We are borg.
>If keeping it simple were above all else,
>then we would just put everything in the
>public domain.
But then the text could be incorporated into proprietary works and we would
not be able to benefit from any improvements they make.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Toby wrote:
>OTOH, the physics and chemistry texts might
>well want to borrow, not just information, but
>entire chunks of text with only minor changes --
>especially given the modular nature of textbooks
>that's been proposed here, where different
>textbooks might share the exact same module.
And how exactly is this going to work if the physics textbook is GNU FDLd and
the chemistry book is CCSA? You cannot mix and match like that because
modules are part of a distinct work. Each work has to be under the same
license.
>I suspect that RMS will accept removing the
>Invariant Sections. But I can't imagine him
>changing the GNU FDL to allow redistribution
>under a Creative Commons license;
If he only removes the invariant sections then the GNU FDL is completely
copyleft and everything major we want it to be. Therefore the differences
between the CCSA and the FDL will be minimal and the advantages of allowing
CCSA along side of the FDL will also be minimal.
>since CC doesn't share the FSF's ethical
>philosophy (they even offer the non-free
>ND and NC license options!),
Strawman alert: The CCSA is the only CC license that could possibly be
compatible with the GNU FDL in both directions.
>how can he be sure that CC licenses will
>remain free?
Simple: "Copyrighted works under the GNU FDL 2.0 or later version created by
the Free Software Foundation can be copied, modified and distributed in full
and placed under the Creative Commons Share Alike license version 2.0 or
later version deemed to be sufficiently free and copyleft per FSF ruling. See
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl/compatibility/ for updates on the status of
the Creative Commons Share Alike license."
>Who has trouble understanding it?
Given the number of copyvios we get daily and the great deal of confusion
people have over copyright issues I would say the answer is self-evident.
>I still expect that most users don't care at all.
And they will furthermore copy text Willy nilly between the various Wikimedia
projects. This should be encouraged. However having incompatible licenses
/within/ Wikimedia will hinder this free exchange.
BTW, we have created over 200,000 encyclopedia articles ourselves and only
occasionally use public domain or GFDL text created elsewhere. There is no
reason to believe that the textbook project will be any different.
Above all else; keep it simple.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Mav wrote:
>We can discuss the possibility of changing license terms
>when somebody finds an impressive non-FDLd free text
>resource whose copyright owner declines our nicely-worded
>request to grant us a GFDL license of their work.
We are creating new content. If we want to use wikipedia
content we can link to it, as I linked to the periodic table.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com