[Textbook-l] Game Guides

Thu Jun 15 12:55:35 UTC 2006

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>This justification does not come from me and makes no sense to me.
>
>If, however, the community of Wikibooks is purging content that does not
>fit with the initial mission of Wikibooks, I see no problem with that.
>
>Please do not portray things that I have not done, am not doing, and
>have nothing to do with as being somehow things that I am doing for some
>alleged financial benefit.
>
>  
>
>>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 would assume that it is quite easy to find a course on video game
>design, and then to write a textbook for that course, using Doom as an
>extended example.  Why should this be problematic?
>

Because content has been removed from Wikibooks citing your words as 
justification for the action.  No community discussion was held, just 
the invokation of your words and the words "not a textbook" as the only 
justification.  If this doesn't come from you, then there are some 
people who are taking some signficant liberties where it shouldn't 
occur.  I have refused to wheel war on this topic (for the most part), 
but instead let the content be deleted and try to fight its removal by 
raising this as a policy discussion, in an attempt to try and "take 
back" Wikibooks, hoping that other users would also agree that the 
content shouldn't be indiscriminately deleted without at least a 
community concensus as to what should or should not be on Wikibooks.

People are leaving Wikibooks over this issue, and I am not the only one 
who has raised the question that the whole idea of what is legitimate 
content on Wikibooks is being questioned.  My user talk page just had 
another user ask me if I knew what could be added to Wikibooks as 
something reasonable, and I couldn't give him a good answer with the 
current state that Wikibooks is in.  I am not confident that even the 
Wikibooks that I started that have tried to be legitimate textbooks 
might be spared the wrath of deletion.

>> 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.  
>>    
>>
>
>Well, I do not agree with that at all.
>
>  
>
I'm glad that a bit of sanity has entered this discussion.  Thank you 
for your replies on this subject.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning
218 Sunstone Circle
Logan, UT 84321
(435) 753-3330
robert_horning at netzero.net