[Textbook-l] Game Guides

Fri Jun 9 18:59:06 UTC 2006

Cormac Lawler wrote:

>On 6/8/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>[snip some intersting stuff]
>  
>
>>So are the various Wikia projects considered sister projects to
>>Wikimedia projects?  Local links (not external references) exist going
>>both ways, including to the Uncyclopedia.  My understanding was that
>>they were very distinct groups (Wikia and Wikimedia) and the policies
>>and even existance of a Wikia project has no bearing on Wikimedia
>>projects.  Apparently this line is being blurred considerably now with
>>the new textbook only philosophy for Wikibooks, and it does have an
>>impact on future content being developed on Wikibooks.  Moving the
>>How-to books to the How-to Wikia seems like an attempt (to me) of
>>capturing Wikibooks content without having to do any work, especially
>>given that the how-to books on Wikibooks predate the How-to Wikia.  Six
>>months ago the idea would have been considered ludicrious to even
>>suggest removing the how-to books.
>>
>>--
>>Robert Scott Horning
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Wikia and Wikimedia are very clearly separate entities with different
>philosophies - as I would put it, basically, Wikimedia is for the
>dissemination of information and knowledge, whereas the purpose of
>Wikia is for building communities around common interests.
>
>Do you mean, though, that the 'How-to' books are being removed from
>Wikibooks to Wikia, or simply used there under the GFDL? I hope it's
>the latter, but, if the former, which ones? There are very clearly
>How-to books that belong on Wikibooks (and that would very definitely
>be useful as part of an accredited course).
>
There is a group on Wikibooks, following the textbook only philosophy to 
an extreme, that suggests How-to books do not belong on Wikibooks 
either, along with the removal of Video Game texts and even biographies 
were suggested for removal.  One of the justifications for this is that 
Wikia projects exist now for these subjects and as such they are no 
longer needed on Wikibooks.  Yes, I agree that Wikia projects can copy 
Wikimedia content as far as they care to, as can anybody else including 
other website developers.  The point here is that the How-to books are 
being copied to another site and then explicitly removed from Wikibooks, 
with only a link on the "main page" to where the "new" content 
location.... now on a Wikia site.  This is also happening with the video 
game guides, and one of my complaints about the process, as it seems as 
though the very people setting up the policies, Jimbo and Angela, have a 
vested interest in moving the content that goes beyond simply trying to 
improve Wikimedia projects.

I am not certain how the financial picture of Wikia is right now, but I 
would guess that it is more of a hobby for Jimbo rather than any 
significant source of revenue.  Still, the suggestion is that this push 
to move content from Wikibooks to Wikia sites may be financially 
motivated to help bolster Wikia sites, at the expense of Wikibooks.  I 
know this is a serious charge, and one that hasn't really been 
completely addressed.  Most Wikia sites are supported by advertising 
revenue, mainly banner ads and Google.

As far as How-to books being textbooks or not, I think they certainly 
qualify as instructional reading material.  If you apply this much more 
loose definition to what is a textbook, there certainly were some items 
on Wikibooks that wouldn't even meet this standard, such as the 
Jokebook.  Indeed the VfD for the Jokebook invoked this philosophy, but 
the defenders of the Jokebook really couldn't suggest that it was any 
sort of instructional material of any kind.  While "How to cause havoc" 
was also instructional material, it was largely the advocacy of, or 
instruction suggesting that you do, illegal activity that was the main 
motivation for its removal.

What has really surprised me, and I think shows how rediculous the drive 
to remove content from Wikibooks has gone, was the reaction I got to 
suggesting a formal textbook about video game design focusing on Doom 
was met with substantial resistance and even outright rejection.  I even 
cited specific univsersity courses and majors from prominent accredited 
educational institutions to demonstrate that such a textbook would not 
only exist, but might even be useful for teaching one of these formal 
courses.  I still contend that content like this is being rejected 
because of the topic alone.  

Also lost in all of this is what role stubs might play in the developing 
of content on Wikibooks, and if some of the content on the chopping 
block might be useful to be transformed into something much more 
substantial and textbook like (or at least book-like.  Unfortunately, 
but best example of how this was done to date is with the Monopoly 
guide, which originally was a blatant copyright violation with some 
minor changes, deleted and turned into some very substantial content 
given the subject matter.

>
>I can't say much on Wikibooks' policies, as I simply don't participate
>in Wikibooks enough, or know enough about its history. Lord Voldemort
>has some interesting questions here, and I can't resist answering one
>of them in particular:
>
>"3. Who has control over the overall content of Wikibooks? The
>Wikimedia Foundation, the WMF Board, the community of Wikibookians?"
>
>As far as I see it: the community has control over the content, and
>the board bears the legal liability for the content. Jimbo's unique
>part in this is that he retains the power to dictate policy where he
>deems necessary, and when he thinks a project has veered off course
>significantly from its goals or the goals of the foundation. I'm not
>sure of what other times he has exercised this power, apart from the
>recent debate about the content of Wikibooks - maybe someone else,
>perhaps Jimbo himself, can clarify this.
>
>That's all for now..
>
>Cormac
>  
>
If this really were something about legal liability, such as dealing 
with copyright violations and a textbook about assassinating the 
President of the USA, I would be more than willing to remove such 
content from Wikibooks.  Indeed even potentially damaging books such as 
ones talking about amature pharmacology (using recreational drugs) and 
making bombs have been removed from Wikibooks already, or are held to a 
very tight leash.  This is something I support and I wish that the video 
game guide debate was really about this.  I fail to see where the legal 
liability rests, however, to hosting video game guides even under the 
most relaxed sort of policies permitting this sort of content.  Other 
policies such as requiring the GFDL and maintaining NPOV standards I 
believe is more than sufficient to keep the tax-exempt status for the 
Wikimedia Foundation.

In terms of suggesting that Wikibooks become more textbook oriented, it 
has been suggested that we make the textbooks we do have much more 
prominent on the front page (this has already happened) and try to make 
sure books recieving awards such as the Book of the Month also try to 
follow a more textbook emphasis.  I think this is reasonable, and a 
pro-active approach to try and reward those formal textbooks should be 
done, with the video game guides and other such books relegated to the 
backwater parts of Wikibooks.  If the concern is that people are linking 
directly to deep content within Wikibooks that is substantially 
non-textbook like (as happened with the Wikimania proceedings), invoking 
the "Wikibooks is not a web hosting service" is sufficient to remove 
such content, through the normal VfD process.  

I would imagine some of the concern over video game guides is about this 
issue as well, where external websites like a video game BBS or yahoo 
mailing list is linking to Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects, using 
the pages as a semi-private wiki dedicated to that group of individuals. 
 Mind you, this is not one of the justifications for removal of the 
video game guides, although it would be something I would consider to be 
a valid argument against such pages on Wikibooks.  Based on edit count 
alone, I would suspect the Runescape price guide was one of those pages 
that had been (and still is BTW) linked on several external websites 
where editors of that page have no contact with the rest of the 
Wikibooks community, nor even know that a Runescape wikibook with more 
information even existed.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning