[Textbook-l] Rewrite of Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks

Sat Jun 17 01:36:19 UTC 2006

Jon wrote:

>I don't intend my draft to be perfect - please go ahead and improve it.
> 
>All constructive comments would be welcome!
>  
>
A couple of potential problems you may wish to think about.   I am not a 
wikibookean because I am not a textbook writer.   I have used some of 
your books and left a few comments or questions occasionally in 
technical areas I was studying.   One caveat, some of your authors have 
started advocating no external links so your "textbooks" look like 
traditional textbooks.   If this becomes the prevailing norm I will no 
longer use  your "textbooks".   I will either buy a "real" "textbook" or 
find another free source online linking around to augmenting or better 
or different online information so I can cross check things that I do 
not understand well or that conflict with my growing understanding of 
the subject material.

**  "A textbook is....

    * a is a book which is actually usable in an existing class.

That class may be at school, college, university, a professional 
training centre or an adult education centre. We would expect the 
subject to be taught in a number of learning institutions, one in the 
whole world is not enough."

This is a better definition in my view than some interpretations I have 
seen that presumed the "textbook" must be currently used in an active 
class or used in one previously.   Obviously this narrow interpretation 
limits your community members and bookshelf assets to existing textbooks 
and textbook writers.   I assumed at the time the narrow defination was 
being applied in some kind of wheel war against a perceived opponent but 
I did not bother to check out what was really going on.   Merely noted 
that if this idiocy spread then the wikibooks site would probably be of 
very little use in the near future to me or much of Wikiversity, which 
is currently viewed by many as being on the leading edge of 
experimenting with new modes of educational materials and self or group 
study activities that are not traditional formal classes.

Perhaps a exposition on the time frames that draft outlines or materials 
can remain in place UNUSED by courses somewhere while the project lead 
seeks sufficient expertise and skill and applicable knowledge from your 
community to get the book to it "textbook" status which complies with 
specific format requirements and attract a known "course" using it 
rather than a few students dropping in occasionally via the web.

In my view the above definition for inclusion is still severely lacking 
as I had many undergraduate classes which cited books which were not 
"textbooks" as useful references in the subject matter for auxillary 
reading.   In my view almost any wikibook written in a somewhat 
objective matter or well labeled subjective manner (the author's 
objective view of the universe vs. Jimbo's communities' objective 
consensus view of the universe hereafter referred to as NPOV) can be 
useful in some type of learning activity by someone at some time.   As 
an uninformed, not a member, of your author based community; I would 
expect to find such a book at a site named "wikibooks.org".  No doubt 
someone will eventually start a "not a textbook wikibook.org" sometime 
and the larger audience's needs or wants for reference books or other 
books will be met elsewhere.

**  "a book written in a similar style to books usable in existing 
classes and which is about a subject worthy of study"

You presume to decide for your future users and authors what subject of 
human knowledge is worthy of study and what style or presentation is 
effective?    You may find this limits and taints your community of 
qualified academic writers.  

Not a large problem for me except some militants from your community are 
very attached to the concept that "textbooks" that evolve at Wikiversity 
shall be relocated to "Wikibooks".   NO DUPLICATION of materials.   If 
your editors subsequently decide a "textbook" is not worth studying it 
is going to have a detrimental impact on the Wikiversity community and 
its customers or students or participants when it is deleted.   Sure it 
can be recovered if it has not been purged completely but who needs the 
hassle of convincing some Wikibookean bureaucrat or Wikimedia Foundation 
member to give it back or undelete at Wikiversity?  

My personal solution is that Wikiversity can maintain whatever materials 
locally that its active study groups or community members choose as long 
as they are not illegal according to Florida state law or U.S. Federal 
law (copyright issues, slanderous material, subversive calls for 
revolution, movement data on troops or encryption codes ... 
treason/espionage) or the negotiated terms of tenancy with the Wikimedia 
Foundation (NPOV, No Nazi propraganda, etc.).   No doubt some local 
community standards will evolve that detail what are appropriate 
materials.  Wikiversity does not need them installed by fiat from 
external sources.

** 

      "The "not a duplicate" criterion

Forking is where a Wikibook on some topic is copied internally in 
Wikibooks. We should only have one textbook on each subject that is 
directed at the same audience. For example, having a book on Chemistry 
for students sitting a specific exam in the UK at aged 18, and another 
one on Chemistry for students sitting a specific exame in the US at aged 
18 is reasonable. Having two textbooks on Chemistry both directed at 
students sitting the same exam is not."

This above is a silly policy.   As a student when I hit a subject that 
is tough going for me personally often the next thing I do is buy a 
couple of more "textbooks" and "references" on the subject.  Different 
people think, organize, and study in different ways.   There can be no 
"only one best" policy unless you plan on toggling between paradigms as 
the collective community membership ebbs and sways with the tides and 
sunspot cycles.

When two authors with diametrically opposed ideas on the best order of 
subject matter for students with a given background show up or a 
professor teaching four different courses of the same material to 
sections of students with known different backgrounds  how are you going 
to decide between the two or provide four different books on the same 
subject?   The loser will undoubtedly be a loss of a potentially 
valuable community member.   I note that you specifically deal with the 
target audience issue and this is a big improvement over the existing de 
facto standard that I have seen in used as justification for deletion 
that there can be only one "textbook" per subject.   I have seen this 
used or advocated in cases that were not forks.  I am not sure what was 
really going on.  Perhaps it was intended as a temporary policy to jerk 
the collective quality of "textbooks" up in a specific area to impress, 
amaze, retain users as future Wikibookeans.   All it did for me was give 
a chill and memories of Nazi bookburning on TV and some religious types 
and some scientific types advocating exclusion of specific books and 
subjects in American schools. Only approved books allowed on campus.

When an author shows up for the book used throughout the Ivy League and 
most of the Northwest on a specific technical subject and generously 
FDL's his book for all future generations covering heat, mass and 
momentum transfer  (3 courses in one textbook) because the equations are 
all similar and it is better than two books treating singular subject 
but worse than the remaining one how are you going to decide which books 
to delete and which to keep?

When the existing community starts to thin out to only existing authors 
using their "textbooks" in their own classes is this a good thing or bad 
thing for wikibooks?  Do you want only a few good people or a large 
community of volunteers?  Keep in mind most "textbooks" published 
professionally have a huge cast of paid and unpaid persons involved in 
their creation and maintenance.   Pick up any "textbook" and read the 
credits and foward typically written by the authors attempting to give 
all credit that is due and the usual ending note appologising for any 
people they forgot or inadvertently omitted send us a letter reminder 
and we will put you in the credits for the next edition.

Hope the above is useful to you.   If not perhaps it will earn it 
bandwidth by stimulating better wording for your basic policies as written.

In conclusion, it was a fairly clear writeup of my dim understanding of 
what the currrent policies are intended to be at Wikibooks.   Once again 
I am not a Wikibookean, only an occasional user of your ever improving 
products.  

Thanks for your efforts!

Sincerely,
Michael R. Irwin
aka lazyquasar