[Foundation-l] Cleaning up Wikibooks (was Re: Incubator Wiki for New Wikimedia Projects)

Fri Nov 18 22:37:51 UTC 2005

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Wikibooks is for textbooks, and this should be narrowly construed
>>> to mean classical textbooks, not to include any learning resources
>>> such as encyclopedias.
>>
>>
>> I tend to interpret the role of Wikibooks very broadly, certainly to 
>> go beyond the idea of the classical textbook.  In some ways the 
>> classical textbook is antithetical to good education because it tends 
>> to mould its users into the same series of learning experiences.  A 
>> single Wikibook should begin with a subject that can be included in 
>> Wikipedia but which requires expansion into a book that in theory 
>> could be published as a stand alone entity.  The Cookbook was a good 
>> example of this.  There was a great debate at one time about the 
>> inclusion of recipes in Wikipedia.  Some were accepted as proper to 
>> Wikipedia, but the bulk ended up in Wikibooks where NPOV could also 
>> be approached with a more relaxed interpretation.
>>
>> Ec
>
>
> A huge issue that has recently erupted on Wikibooks is resulting from 
> a thread started by of all people Jimbo in the Staff Lounge:
>
> "In the next 24 to 48 hours, I will delete a variety of pages from 
> Wikibooks which are a clear and simple violation of our charter. 
> Jokebook <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Jokebook>, Getting a date 
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Getting_a_date>, Naturism 
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Naturism&action=edit> are 
> all not textbooks and need to be moved to another site. There may be 
> more.--Jimbo Wales <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> 
> 17:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)"
>
> While I may agree with him in regards to those particular Wikibooks, 
> this has resulted in a huge examination of the overall philosophy of 
> Wikibooks and what should and should not be there.  In particular, 
> Jimbo also changed the wording of an official policy from:
>
> "As a general rule, any book you might expect to find in the 
> non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop is acceptable."
>
> to become instead:
>
> "As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the 
> non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not 
> acceptable. This is for textbooks."
>
> This is Jimbo's website, so I guess he can make arbitrary changes like 
> this whenever he wants to.  Still, as a Wikibook admin I am scratching 
> my head to understand the full impact of this official policy change. 
> In particular, it means that non-textbooks like the Cookbook may have 
> to go, at least if we have a consistant textbook-only policy.  A large 
> number of items are also being trans-wikied from Wikipedia to 
> Wikibooks, so it is important as well to Wikpedia users to understand 
> what the implications of this policy change is going to be.  And this 
> is a policy change, as much as Jimbo wants to hide from that fact.
>
> There is a general tolerance of new content that goes onto Wikibooks, 
> in part because it is a smaller project and we are trying to attract 
> and keep contributors even if they add content that perhaps should be 
> there. Writing a book is harder, and in some ways much harder than 
> even an encyclopedia entry.  Driving away new contributors just 
> because they do something against policy is especially harmful.  
> Jimbo's comment that followed was especially harsh:
>
> "I'm happy to give more time, but these books are already candidates 
> for speedy deletion. The point is that, to give on example which was 
> thankfully already deleted, a racist white-power book is not a 
> textbook, never will be a textbook, and should have been deleted on 
> site and the creator banned for vandalism on site. --Jimbo Wales 
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> 21:03, 13 November 
> 2005 (UTC)"
>
> The user that added this white power book has otherwise done Wikibooks 
> quite a bit of good, and banning him would only make an enemy rather 
> than a useful contributor.  I prefer to follow the model of trying to 
> mentor and encourage proper behavior where possible, and this user was 
> not showing signs of traditional vandalism, nor would I want to drive 
> this user to go in that direction.  We did delete the white-power book 
> after a surprisingly short period of time on the Wikibooks VfD page.
>
> I think this issue needs to be brought to the attention of the larger 
> Wikimedia community, and to be aware that there is a huge struggle 
> going on to try an interpret Jimbo's actions here.

Without commenting on the applicability to the specified books,  this 
policy change is bizarre and out of character.  (Still I do note that 
there seems to be no attempt to get rid of [[Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and 
Other Deleted Nonsense]].)  My primary activity has been on an other 
project, so I have not kept up to date on all the policy discussions, 
but I do remember the original establishment of Wikibooks, and the split 
off of Wikisource.  The intent and purpose of Wikibooks was  seen  in 
very broad terms; any kind of non-fiction book that you might find in a 
library or bookstore represents a fair assessment of the broadest 
mandates.  (Including the word "local" might even be too restrictive 
unless it allows for comparable facilities on a university campus.) 
Exceptions to that should be clearly described.  Insisting on a strict 
interpretation of "textbook" suggests that we are clear about the 
meaning of that word, but are we really so clear?  "Textbook" may imply 
some kind of attempt at standardization, but about what subjects?  We 
don't need to limit ourselves to books about traditional school 
curriculum subjects; a textbook about how to play some videogame is 
still a textbook.  From my perspective a cookbook IS a textbook.  The 
concept of "no original research probably needs to be interpreted more 
flexibly than in Wikipedia.  It would certainly be appropriate to use it 
to prevent the development of entirely new wacko theories, but 
developing subject continuity or filling the gaps between chapters may 
often require original research.

If a handful of books are determined to be offensive that may be ample 
reason for deleting those books; those books should not become straw men 
to justify policies that have nothing to do with what makes them 
offensive.  To be sure there have been a few recent discussions on the 
mailing list about Wikibooks, but none of it has been particularly 
alarming.  The Wikijunior and Wikiversity discussions seemed relatively 
normal.  "How to Get a Girl," has been mentioned, but that was a fairly 
focussed discussion about one book.  There have been other discussions 
about other projects where the persuasiveness of an elephant's foot 
would have been far more welcome.

In many respects you ar right when you say that Jimbo can make arbitrary 
changes whenever and wherever he wants on a site that belongs.  (The 
legal niceties about a person's relationship with a registered 
non-profit society that he founded are well beyond the scope of these 
comments.)  Much of what has been built up over what is now nearly five 
years has been built on trust and on support for a fundamental idea.  
People who have contributed enormous amounts of time, and more recently 
money, have contributed to an idea and a vision rather than a person.  
They have been able to put aside staggeringly different political 
philosophies for the sake of something in which they all believe.  
Creators who intervene in the societies thay have created often do so at 
a price; it can even mean that people begin not to believe in God anymore.

Ec