kelvSYC wrote:
I guess that
I'm trying to modify the deletion policy somewhat to
allow *some* forking of Wikipedia content, provided that the content
on Wikibooks really is an expansion of the Wikipedia article and not
just some POV fight or fork of Wikipedia content. The nature of
Wikibooks certainly allows almost any article on Wikipedia to be
turned into a book, provided there are interested parties willing to
write the content. Forbidding any fork would, in effect, kill
almost any Wikibook stub right now.
We do not allow any content that isn't considered to be instructional
material. The spirit of WB:WIN is that if you want to expand a WP
article, then do it on WP. Personally, I am opposed to any Wikipedia
forking in general because of the fact that I consider encyclopedia
articles are not by itself instructional material. Based on your
post, [[The Biography of Nikola Tesla]] would have been deleted
whether we have the changed policy or not, due to it originating from
an edit war.
I have to say that, to some real extent, the "books" part of
Wikibooks is really a misnomer: it's not clearly intuitive that we
are writing textbooks of instructional material on this wiki.
From following discussion on Foundation-l, it seems as though a number
of people at Wikipedia and Meta have a very different opinion of what
Wikibooks is all about, and it seems as though Wikibooks has in effect
been turned into a general repository of non-fiction book-length topics.
In particular, discussions around
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects seem to
indicate a more general attitude toward Wikibooks.
One of the problems that Wikibooks is suffering from right now is that
Wikiversity is not really a successful project in itself. Yes, there is
content there, but even project like Virtual University
(
http://www.vu.org/) show more of a real academic environment. Another
one is Diversity University (
http://www.du.org/). Even if Wikiversity
were brought up to these somewhat modest standards, the auxuallary role
of Wikibooks would be considerably more apparant. Instead, Wikibooks is
percieved as an auxuallary role to Wikipedia and the other "sister
projects" of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has in effect a broading of
scope effect to Wikibooks.
On Wikibooks itself I've been involved with a minor edit war where some
people have tried to come into one of the Wikibooks I've created and try
to turn it into a subject-based Wikipedia, and I've resisted the effort,
particuarly on the talk pages. Somehow the idea that content on
Wikibooks should be a book rather than a bunch of web pages loosely
connected does not always get across.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Wikibooks is drifting from its
original and noble foundations, and I really don't see significant
effort to try and go back to those roots. Nor do I see any desire by
the newer Wikibookians to try and follow that ideal, at least to the
letter as supplimental materials to Wikiversity or to support specific
academic standards requirements. Let me put it more directly and
specifc then: How many Wikibooks that can be used as a textbook for any
major college or university, or follows state or national academic
requirements to be used as the basis for curriculm development as a
textbook? The FHSST books are based on this type of standard, but that
does come from outside Wikibooks to at least get it started. Books like
"How to Build a Pykrete Bong" are more typical to Wikibooks, unfortunately.
I fail to see what the origin of motivation for creating a Wikibook has
to do with if it gets deleted or not. It should IMHO (and apparently
this opinion is not shared) stand on its own merits independently of
other content on other Wikimedia projects. I have posted requests for
deletion for content that seems to be a pure fork of Wikipedia content
(and nothing added) to Wikibooks, and there are several Wikibook modules
that really do need to be deleted on this basis.
There really isn't an effort on Wikipedia to allow book-length material
either, which is one reason why the Nikola Tesla information was put
here on Wikibooks. While part of an edit war, it seems as though
contributors at Wikipedia are being told to go away, and that some
admins at Wikibooks are saying the same thing. This is not a good thing
to do in either case, and weakens both communities as a result. If, as
you seem to suggest, that Wikibooks should be for pure textbook content,
perhaps Wikibooks itself needs to fork and a separation between academic
books and other non-fiction materials needs to take place.
--
Robert Scott Horning