Re: NPOV and NOR as a local or a global policies on Wikibooks?

Thanks for your considered reply, Andrew.

We disagree, and that's not a bad thing.  Perhaps this dialog will help
us polish our beliefs, perhaps we will even persuade ourselves to new
beliefs.

Although I'm only one person, that's neither important nor unimportant.
It's the ideas themselves that I share that are worthy or unworthy, on
their own merits, regardless of how many people sign my email.

I'm still not sure what Wikibooks is.  Although you can try to educate
me, why not enhance the Wikibooks front page for everyone, and then just
share a link here?  Are you saying Wikibooks is for cooperative
authorship of NEW technical, non-fiction, and how-to manuals?  Let me
study the NOR No Original Research policy on that one!  Or, is Wikibooks
only OLD stuff that's not copyrighted anymore ... and, what, we're just
editing and rewriting OLD stuff?  Are you saying that because fiction is
too hard to cooperatively co-author, the Wikibook site has evolved away
from fiction?  Because it's too hard?  Geesh - I'd love a Wikimusic, er,
excuse me, a Wikicomposer site.  Teams make music all the time.  True,
one author makes a vanity press, but two authors together make a
Wikipress.  HEY, a new Wiki name!  Get in cahoots with some on-demand
publishers and let author teams have at it, and let visitors order their
own hard copy!  I digress ... but do I, really?

I didn't write to Amazon, but I also didn't buy from them (I used
http://www.abebooks.com/).  As I mentioned, the Amazon name at first
seem to mean nothing, but ACQUIRED distinctiveness as a book store, and
it was only later that I realized that the word Amazon was not
descriptive of their bookstore-ness, but was a hint or simile describing
their desire to be as large a thoroughfare as the Amazon River is, "the
largest river in the world by volume" according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River.  In other words, Amazon wants
to be "the largest internet seller in the world by volume", or something
like that.  By the way, Amazon is so taken by the Wikipedia/MediaWiki
whirlwind that they have started their own at
http://amapedia.amazon.com/.  Check it out.

You make my own point in why you didn't share links to Wikibooks: "they
are not particularly well-maintained nor aesthetically pleasing"!  Hey,
Andrew, I'm not faulting anybody.  I'm just saying.  Why are we writing
here when we could find and fix 'em, instead?

Nike's slogan (battle cry) may be "Just do it!" but "Just do it" is not
their name, and neither their slogan nor their name is a generic
description of their product.  Wikibooks IS intended to be a generic
identifier of the product, and as such I found it inaccurate and
misleading (a waste of the builder's and visitor's time), hence the
suggestion to switch to a non-descriptive name like "Wikiralph", hahaha.
I was joking, but consider the source.  See my email address to help
explain why I'm focusing on marks in trade.  "Nike" is a GREAT mark in
that it does not define ONE product.  If they had called themselves
"Sneakers", they'd eventually have a challenge selling non-sneakers.  By
calling themselves Nike after the Greek goddess of victory, they can
sell anything to anyone who wants to feel victorious.  Very savvy.
"WIKI"-anything is descriptive; a "Wikibooks" that excludes SOME books
is by definition misdescriptive.  I'm just trying to find out what
Wikibooks IS, if it's not where to find "quick, community built books"
of any type, totally in the control of the individual teams of
contributors.

It absolutely IS our job to provide Wikibooks visitors with information,
especially about what Wikibooks is NOT, and share where others go to
find non-Wikibooks offerings.  Like Santa Clause in the "Miracle on 34th
Street" movie, if you ask Macy's for something they don't have, and you
know it's at Gimbals, then send them to Gimbals.  Instead of frustrating
visitors, you're inviting them to come back, time after time, because
THIS is where they found help!  In that vein, I suggest, on the front
page, 

Wikibooks is NOT: 
- A cooperative of fiction authors - see http://www.yada,yada,yada.com/
for that.
- On-demand publishing - see http://www.blah-blah-blah.com/ for that.

... and so on.  Actually, why not make a Wikibooks page saying what
Wikibooks is NOT?  I'm familiar with
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Replies_to_common_objections but it's
buried, not well formatted, and seems structured as a random sheave of
notes.  Let's  create:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_is_not   

... linked form the Wikibooks front page.  Then, let us all share our
own links in various categories that direct Wikibooks visitors to
reasonable alternatives for what they are looking for, because NPOV
Neutral Point Of View and NOR No Original Research and other "limits"
cause Wikibooks to refrain from such offering.  But, "thanks for
visiting, return often, and share what you learn when it's appropriate
to do so here."

What say?

- Peter Blaise

PS - I'm reading and will respond to others very, very thoughtful
replies later.  I must get some other tasks completed first.  Thank you
all very much.  GREAT discussion!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: textbook-l-bounces-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org 
> [mailto:textbook-l-bounces-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org] 
> On Behalf Of Andrew Whitworth
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:46 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: NPOV and NOR as a local or a global policies on
Wikibooks?
>
> I didn't provide links to the pages I mentioned, because while they do
in 
> fact exist, they are not particularly well-maintained nor
aesthetically 
> pleasing. The most important method of organization, and the one that
is 
> best maintained, is the bookshelf system, to which there are ample
links.
>
> The fact that you are confused about our name is misfortunately,
certainly. 
> However, your confusion is simply not enough impetus for our entire
project 
> and it's community of volunteer authors and editors to change
completely. A 
> little confusion is a small price to pay for the name recognition that
the 
> "Wikibooks" brand has acquired over the years. Despite your
complaints, 
> wikibooks is not named "Wikilibrary", and it does, in fact, only
contain 
> "books".
>
> And Nike's "Just Do It" slogan doesn't mean anything to me, but that
doesn't 
> make it a less effective advertising tool. Wikisource contains
original 
> source documents, so the name seems pretty appropriate to me.
>
> Trust me, if you hang around long enough, the name "Wikibooks" will
grow on 
> you too. But let me ask you this: When Amazon first started up, did
you send 
> them an email saying that their name was stupid and that they should
change 
> it?
>
> It's not really our job to point visitors to other people's websites.
If you 
> do a search on google, and it doesn't return any results, it doesn't
say 
> "Sorry we couldn't help you, how about you try your search on MSN
instead?"
>
> --Andrew Whitworth