Simetrical wrote:
On 2/7/07, Robert Scott Horning
<robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
Has she considered Wikisource? The goal of
Wikisource is to preserve
the content as is, with the only editing to improve minor spelling
issues or to fix the content to a more historically accurate version.
"Donated" works are acceptable from what I understand as well.
According to the policy,
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes>,
non-documentary sources "must have been published in a medium that
includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes
self-publication". Although she may publish the book more
conventionally too, it's not going to happen right away and it may not
happen at all, so I don't think it qualifies (yet).
The purpose of this is to avoid people who seek vanity publishers.
There have been a few "books" that have been uploaded to Wikibooks that
IMHO are really just vanity publishing, but usually the idea that the
content must be editable to others scares away most of those who seek to
go this route. Obviously Wikisource gets hit much harder on something
like this, which is why they have such a firm policy.
Honestly, another "alternative" to this perhaps might be Wikiversity.
The policies are not quite as firm there, but I would have to say that
the definition of a textbook on Wikiversity would be much stronger than
perhaps what you would find on Wikibooks, where more general purpose
"How-to" books are allowed. If this could be integrated into a
Wikiversity "course", there might even be some very real interest in
having this hosted on Wikiversity. Certainly this is something to bring
up on the Wikiversity "Collequium" (the Wikiversity village pump).
Her professional credentials may have some influence on Wikiversity, as
well as if the textbook is actually being used (or has been used) in an
actual college course. Such things shouldn't matter ultimately, but
Wikiversity is trying to get something going and this would also help
bring legitimacy to that project. If this professor were to accept
some legitimate "peer review" and legitimate criticism, try fix up some
things that may be some glaring holes (she would still retain general
editorial control), perhaps there might be some room as well.
I'm just trying to find a solution to this. If she is simply tired of
working on it, Wikibooks would be a better solution as it would open it
up for further editing by somebody who might be interested in taking it
somewhere in a new direction. At least try to offer a suggestion to go
this route or try to find out why she is insisting on maintaining
control over the word of the book and not opening it up for collaboration.
Another very real possibility, and something I'm just trying to dig up
right now, is the Academia Wikia, which you can find at:
http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
They mainly do scholarly research, but something like this may also
appeal to participants there. I will admit that I don't have any
contact with the regular contributors there, however.
--
Robert Scott Horning