It would be useful if Jimmy would comment on the questions asked, but I would like to
make
the following comments (the numbers refer to Lord Voldemort's initial email):
1, 2. My understanding is that Wikibooks' purpose always has been to provide
textbooks.
Article II of the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws says, in part, refers to "... a
collection of e-book
resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public
domain
books) named Wikibooks".
(see
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws )
3. The Wikimedia Foundation, operating through its Board, have overall control of
Wikibooks
(they set its scope in the Foundation bylaws, and can choose to change this or to close
the
project if they see fit). However, subject to this, Wikibookians deal with the day to day
editing
of the site, including the setting of site policies (whilst this is subject to them being
consistent
with what the WMF says, the WMF is very hands-off in this regard).
4, 5. Games guides are not textbooks. Therefore they do not fit within Wikibooks'
purpose.
6, 7. Wikibooks' contributors must work within the defined scope of the project. They
are on a
very free rein as to what they do, but they cannot extend this scope. Requests for scope
changes
and new Wikimedia projects can be made on Metawiki.
8. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There is no special Wikibooks
definition of it. A
textbook on games, game design, history of games that would assist someone studying them
would be within Wikibooks' scope. Note, however, that no-one would reasonably describe
a
simple games walkthrough as a textbook. They might call it a guide or perhaps, at a push,
a
manual, but it would not be a textbook in the normal sense.
9. A straightforward guide on a board game would not normally be described as a textbook.
As for game guides, however, it would be possible to write a detailed textbook on some
board
games suitable for students.
10, 11. The talk of an "accredited institution" metric appears to have been
suggested mostly by
those speaking out in favour of keeping games guides, with the idea of rubbishing it as
providing
too narrow an inclusion criterion. We don't need such a metric - the general test is
whether the
book is or is not a textbook (but see my qualification of this below). An "accredited
institution"
metric along the lines of "if a subject is studied in a number of accredited
institutions it can be
deemed worthy of study" may be acceptable in the sense that textbook subjects meeting
that test
should be allowed. However, any such test should not be limiting - there are many
worthwhile
subjects for study that do not meet that test that are within Wikibooks' scope.
12. Inevitably the removal of game guides from Wikibooks will see those who only edited
those
areas of Wikibooks leave. It will also see those who spent some of their time on Wikibooks
on
editing game guides, and some time on textbooks, reduce the time they spend on Wikibooks.
On
the other hand, a more focused Wikibooks will help attract other new editors committed to
providing quality open-content textbooks.
13. I would add the following. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There
are many possible
subject areas and styles for textbooks. The word should be interpreted widely on
Wikibooks, but
the meaning should not be stretched so as to include texts that are clearly not textbooks
in any sense
of the word. There are also some subjects that are innately inappropriate as subjects of
textbooks,
or which would be deemed unsuitable - these are few and far between, but might include
textbooks
extolling black (or white) supremacy, a textbook to train people in terrorism, a textbook
on a little
recognised constructed language (such as one I have just made up, or which literally only
a handful
of people have any interest in). Other than extreme cases such as these (which can be
discussed on
WB:VFD), all textbooks should be welcome on Wikibooks.
X. There has not been a suggestion that all "How-tos" were removed. Jimbo has
noted that some
"How-tos" should be removed (which was certainly true at the time). This
unfortunately, but I believe
erroneously, was picked up by some to mean that all How-tos should be removed.
Y. Eric Moeller's suggestion of renaming Wikibooks to Wikitextbooks has some merit.
Although
"Wikitextbooks" is longer and less sexy, it would make clearer to everyone what
Wikibooks' scope is.
Many people, particularly on Wikipedia, incorrectly think that any book content is
suitable for
Wikibooks. This is a misconception that really should be removed.
Kind regards
Jon
(jguk)