Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 6/8/06, Robert Scott Horning
<robert_horning(a)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