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

Wed Nov 23 15:07:25 UTC 2005

On 11/22/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> > 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.
>
> In legitimate, accredited cooking schools, cookbooks are textbooks.  I
> see no reason why a cookbook should not be considered a textbook in this
> context.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is a mistake, actually.  The best way to attract and keep new
> contributors is to have a clean and passionate mission which is kept as
> simple as possible.  Seeing tolerance for a "white power" racist tract
> (which went through a long vfd before finally being deleted after I saw
> it and complained, rather than deleting on sight and banning the creator
> as a racist vandal...) is a great way to drive away contributors -- the
> same goes for other cruft like "How to get a girl".
>
SJ made a good post about this one.  Call the book "Dating Skills" or
"Developing Healthy Relationships" and it's more clearly not cruft. 
In fact, you could probably even call it a textbook.

> > "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 very strongly disagree.  Wikibooks does not need such books, and it
> was an is an embarassment to see such a thing.
>
> --Jimbo

I agree that Wikibooks doesn't need such books, and I'm sure you were
embarassed to see it.  But that doesn't mean you need to ban the
person who added it.

Anthony