Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks

Problem

I am not able to archive the text(MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) or undo/rollback (TW) what I have done. --Good afternoon (discuss • contribs) 08:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Good afternoon: Since it says, when you try to save it, the problem is the link to wikia dot com, I archived it with that link disabled, and noted what I'd done in the edit summary. What I changed: diff. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Good afternoon (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The source code of a computer operating system

The page states "Published texts — Wikibooks is for collaboratively developing new open-content non-fiction texts." The open source code for a computer operating system is precisely that. Therefore a wikibook composed of such source code should be possible. You won't allow it. Correct? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If presented in a textbook format as required I don't see why we should oppose it. Note that the bigger issue is the licensing problems that exist with computer source code on wikibooks. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I also published some plain sourcecode on wikibook on my user namespace, nobody cared, its still there https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dirk_Huenniger/csmon. So if you want you may do so, its just quite impractical. Better use something like git or svn. You can have that for free on sourceforge or github. --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Why impractical? I know about git and svn. Native Oberon is in the SourceForge; https://sourceforge.net/projects/nativeoberon/ . A wikibook has at least two pertinent and significant benefits. Firstly, the source can be read directly with a Web browser. The user needs no understanding of the git or svn mechanisms. This is significant for an unsophisticated reader. Secondly, each article page has a discussion page where obscurities and revisions can be discussed. If these capabilities are available with git or svn, I'm unaware. Regards, PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Both, git and svn have the versioning history, which might be a little bit difficult to get with wikis and wikibooks. Also git and svn normally have a fron end to browse the repository directly with a Web browser. It requires some tweaking if the files are binary as for Oberon and derivatives. Just scanning github finds a normal repository https://github.com/OS2World/DEV-MODULA-UTIL-Modula2 where you can view the contents in a browser. But for these two, which have come from an Oberon heritage, tweaking is necessary: https://github.com/AlexIljin/WinOberon and/or https://github.com/BlackBoxCenter/blackbox. I had been thinking about this already earlier and have not yet completely understood how to tweak it, but the basics for that tweaking can be found in the Pro Git book in Chap. 8.2 (https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Attributes). Regards (Treutwein (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

On another facet of what-is-permitted-here, seems to me section #Wikibooks includes annotated texts would apply. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes; as I understand it confirms that the source text of an operating system is appropriate content for a Wikibook. Certainly there would be explanatory pages in addition to the bare sources. Also worth noting: Wikisource is not appropriate. The software source texts would not be static. Improvements, including bug corrections would be ongoing. Refer in https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks#Wikibooks_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_text_repository , "Wikisource is for hosting static texts ...".
Regards, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Free of charge and Free as in freedom

The word free has many different meanings. In most of contexts, it means free of charge. However, Wikibooks is both free of charge (as described in the page) and free as in freedom, therefore, in Wikibooks such use should be discouraged. The 'What Wikibooks is not' section should be also changed accordingly (a synonym of 'free of charge' is 'gratis'). --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is easily resolved by making better use of the English language: cost-free versus restriction-free. The "free" of CopyLeft, for instance, means restriction-free (except, of course, the restriction against imposing restrictions other than this one). Further refinements, just as easily made, can be used to distinguished other nuances of the term "free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:aa40:1ef2:222:69ff:fe4c:408b (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Original research for educational purposes

I think there is a problem with the no original research rule. As soon as a textbook is at a moderate or high level, it is always original research work, at least in the presentation and development of principles and concepts. The present rule would ban most existing textbooks from Wikibooks. In fact, many existing wikibooks already contain original research material, not only those I wrote.

This a a real problem for me because a few wikibookians want to prevent me from working the way I want. And they argue with the no original research rule. My answer: "This book is an educational textbook. This is standard quantum physics explained in the framework of Everett's theory. Everything is proved from the first principles, and the computations are usually very simple and can be found in any textbook on the same subject. There are a few paragraphs where I explain my original work because it was made for educational purposes." didn't convince them. Do you think that textbook authors don't have the right to work in Wikibooks if they work with principles similar to mine?

In the french-speaking community, our rule is : "Wikibooks welcomes original works only if they are part of an educational textbook". I think this is a good rule. And you?--TD (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

No, there is not a problem with it. You just don't understand it. It should be clear that you don't, for a reason that you yourself point out: if your understanding were correct, a lot of books already here would be in violation of the rule. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You might be right. I don't always understand what I think. But for your information, I wrote the rule.--TD (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not French Wikibooks. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I know. This is why I suggest this rule here for discussion in our english-speaking community.--TD (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood me. I said, in part, that you do not understand [the rule], and you said that you wrote the rule; that suggests that you were talking about the rule on French Wikibooks. I was not. The topic of your post, as presented, was presumably the first thing you said: that there was a "problem" with a certain rule on English Wikibooks. There is not a problem with it, and there is clear evidence that you do not understand it; and I said there was not a problem with it, and I pointed out some immediately proximate evidence that you do not understand it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When you wrote "not a problem with it", I thought you taught about the rule just above. I suppose this means that you don't agree with the suggested rule.--TD (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In theory, everything on Wikibooks is an educational textbook. In theory. (Yes, there are cases that push the envelope, and one tries to be sensible about it and not let common-sense relaxation in one case become entitlement in another case.) And our prohibition against OR was, so I've heard, a major motivation in the creation of Wikiversity.

We generally would not, I think, object to original ways of presenting material, within reason (though I recall a case that got moved to Wikiversity, which I should probably look up when I get a chance, to see just what was said in the discussions at the time — it may be highly relevant here). Presenting material about new research seems to me to depend on how idiosyncratic it is; it's not generally okay to write a book about one's own work, although there might be room to nibble, very carefully, around the edges of that. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem with it - a big problem. Any compilation of educational information abuts the line with "original research". A large part of research involves better organizing information that's already out there, and providing a more coherent framework - especially one that exposes and fills in gaps. Between "original research" and "regurgitating already-existing information verbatim" there is no room for anything; and distinctions that allow one to say otherwise are purely subjective and will lead to arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement. An important example: a compilation into Wikibooks of recently-published peer-reviewed research, to make it more accessible to a general audience, that is written by the ones who originally published it in the journal. If it's already in a peer-reviewed journal, does it count as "original research"? No? Okay then; if it's written by the people who published it in the journal, does it count as "original research"? Or are they supposed to bring in a ghost-writer? So - as you can see even by this simple example - there is no line to distinguish what's okay from what's not. And even if there were, the restriction is basically saying that the premier experts on the material published in a journal are not able to write a wikibook on the subject - which makes no sense at all. Another set of examples: any survey of what's out there is "original research" - the very process of surveying is a form of research! (Journals will even publish such material). So, now you're also excluding compilations that bring everything together in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:aa40:1ef2:222:69ff:fe4c:408b (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Chemistry

What is valency 105.112.28.20 (discuss) 10:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Chemistry

The first 103 element 105.112.28.20 (discuss) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we remove "Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia" ? There are plenty of useful books that could be written about topics in an encyclopedic manner, covering subjects and topics that are excluded under Wikipedia under the notability guidelines.

For example, an encyclopedia of Australian Law (which I would wish to write) could include subjects such as academics in niche Australian areas that would otherwise be excluded under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I note that other encyclopedias already exist on Wikibooks; such as the 'encyclopedia of self-help techniques' and 'The Unicyclopedia'

For clarity and consistency's sake, could we please remove this line?

Kind regards Jack4576 (discuss • contribs) 09:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another option would be to add a sentence underneath saying: “while generalist encyclopaedias are not allowed, specialist encyclopaedias are allowed in Wikibooks, particularly where their coverage includes subjects not present on Wikipedia” Jack4576 (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)