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

Peter, I was given this page as one to look at and discuss naming, branding,
etc:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey

Maybe you can give them your quarter's worth using your expertise and
motivation.

-Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Monahon, Peter B. [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:29 AM
To: Wikimedia textbook discussion
Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] NPOV and NOR as a local or a global policies
onWikibooks?

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


_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l