Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2006/September

Implications of releasing an Open Content License book into GFDL for use in Wikibooks.
This question comes from a discussion on Sensei's Library.
A user there is open to the idea of releasing a book he wrote to Wikibooks, but was having doubts about licencing issues.
The book in question is "unkx80.netfirms.com/weiqi/howtoplaygo/". The author has stated that it was released under Open Content License, the license used by Sensei's Library (see http://senseis.xmp.net/?SLCopyright).
After some discussion, he stated:
"However, I would really prefer to release my work under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, because I made not a single cent out of my own work." (see the first link)
Would that be possible?
Are there restrictions to dual-licensing? If so, what are they?
Since I would like to add more Go knowledge to Wikimedia projects, I'm posting this here. Hopefully I'm not asking in the wrong place, nor is this question already answered elsewhere.
I will check this page from time to time, but I would appreciate it if someone left me a message at my Wikipedia user talk page, or replied to his doubts at the first link. 
Phelanpt 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have, quite a while ago, released my "How To Play Go" work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. I think I am not likely to release it under the GFDL. unkx80 (author of "How To Play Go") 12:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks rival ?
There's a competition out there you know 
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uog-gtp083106.php
 08:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
BOTM and COTM.
I have updated the BOTM and COTM winners for September, but I warn people that the text of the entries is very bad. People who are associated with these books (or people with a better grasp of these topics then I have) are encouraged to edit the text of these templates. -- 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks Logo Vote.
There is currently a movement to change the wikibooks logo on meta:
There are several good candidates, including an option to keep the current logo. Also, there is somequestion about the current motto that is on the logo image ("Think Free, Learn Free"), and whether it should be altered or even omitted entirely.
I would recommend that all wikibookians go over to meta, and voice your opinions. Voting is scheduled to begin on this issue on Sept 7th. -- 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Gaming manual as a textbook.
I'm throwing down the gauntlet here on this issue again. I am sick an tired of a bunch of content being removed simply because it is of a particular theme. In particular, the removal of the gaming guides was IMHO totally out of line, but in this case I would like to prove both Jimbo and the rest of the anti-gaming guide people that they are not only wrong, but flat out wrong about the removal of content simply because of the topic, not because of the content.
I'm willing to consider a number of options, but what I'd like to do is write a real honest-to-goodness textbook that would be of the quality that it could be used for a university class, but that the "topic" of the textbook is a video game. Specifically I'd like to do Doom if for no reason other than Jimbo has specifically marked it for deletion and claimed that it could never be made into a textbook. I'd love to prove him wrong on this point in particular.
This is not intended to be a video game walkthrough (which should have been the point of the debate well before the removal of the gaming guides), but rather an in depth scholarly review of this game, and to point out the historical significance that this game has within the computer gaming industry. The historical roots of this game, including Castle Wolfenstein, Commander Keen, and other earlier ID software games, as well as other computer games would be included in this book as well. How Doom has affected the development of other first-person shoot 'em up games would also be a significant point in this book as well.
All other Wikibooks and in general Wikimedia policies should be followed when developing this textbook, which the end goal is to reach a standard that if this is deleted, that wikibooks itself should be simply shut down as a failed project.
I don't know if there are any video game textbook supporters left on Wikibooks, but if there is anybody interested in taking on this project, please let me know. I think a real textbook can be written on this topic. Others may disagree, but this is also to see if there is any room left on Wikibooks to even permit the writing of such a real textbook. My opinion is that just because of the subject matter that it shouldn't be deleted out of hand. -- 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd have no problem at all with a textbook on Doom along the lines that Robert suggests. Wikibooks is for textbooks. I believe we all agree that books similar to those used in existing classes in a number of learning institutions are within our scope. Additionally, I believe we all think that Wikibooks' scope is wider than that - although we do disagree on how much wider it is than that and how to define accurately what we mean by a textbook that can't be used for a current class in a learning instition.
To my mind a lot of what a textbook is is in the aim and style and the use to which a textbook can be put. It would be foolish to say that there can be a textbook on every conceivable topic, yet at the same time it is possible to write interesting and informative textbooks that do not correspond to classes in schools, universities or adult education centres. Robert's proposed book on Doom, for me, appears to meet the right criteria. I would stress though that our current book on Doom does not.
I would, however, ask Robert, for his own sake, to think whether he really wishes to pursue his idea - as I'm sure we are all aware, writing a book takes up a surprisingly large amount of time. However, if Robert will put in this effort in essence just to prove a point (and at the risk of Jimbo ordering the book off Wikibooks anyway) then I will not in any way seek to hinder him, 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic, Robert. How is a "scholarly review" a game manual? The book Doom "can't" be turned into a textbook without rewriting all of the content, which is what you intend to do. Correct me if I'm wrong but Jimbo has never said that a textbook can't be written on this topic. In his WB:WIW revision, he said quite the opposite. I think what you have to ask yourself is whether a book would be usable in a classroom on any aspect of game design, like an annotated text would be in a literature classroom. I also don't know what to popularity of video games has to do with this. There are even colleges devoted to video game design, but not one has a "How to finish Doom" or "Doom Manual" class. -- 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the others, but my input in this matter has always been from the perspective of a gamer. I originally came to Wikibooks because of the "" guide, where a large portion of my contributions were and likely still are. And once it was suggested that they be moved I was fine with that, as to me it makes sense to move to a more focussed, gamer-friendly wiki. Indeed I've talked to many outside of the wiki environment who were "surprised" that a site called "Wikibooks" had videogame strategy at all!
I bear gaming topics no ill will. If someone starts "A Tempest in a Coffee Pot? Jack Thompson Vs. the Gaming World" I'll be right in there expanding it and linking to interviews and the like. But if someone starts "The Definitive "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories" Solutions Manual" I'll take it to Vfd soon after. Serious Wikibooks can and will one day be written regarding videogames, but the current game guides simply don't fit that category. And is moving them off Wikibooks all that dissimilar from your tabula rasa propsal? 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just all petition the Wikimedia Foundation for an entirely brand new domain where video game guides and other how-to books could reside (Wikigames or Wikiguides, or some other creative name), leaving Wikibooks for just textbooks (and perhaps while we're at it move Wikiversity too?). Or keep "them" here and form a Wikitext for only textbooks. We already have a lot of content that could populate both, and it would all be contained under the Wikimedia umbrella. Anyone wanna take this to meta with me? -- 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm. As interesting as the idea of a separate project is it would have some growing problems. Most importantly Wikibooks has been the videogaming recipient for several years now; no matter how loudly any policy changes are stated on Wikipedia there will still be content dumped here due to habit. And so a good portion of transwikiing work will be spent moving such stuff off Wikibooks and into "Wikiguides", and then the userbase there will in turn have to move it around within their own system or else just plain delete it. If the Foundation "are" going to keep videogame guides in the family why not just leave them here? And as for the likelihood of the Foundation accepting the proposal, I really can't say how videogame content on its own, even if bolstered by non-gaming howtos, can fit the Foundation's "educational mission". 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Page break for editing purposes.
"Revived from archives" 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This certainly was an interesting discussion, but I dont know specifically what you want changed? You want wikibooks to allow video-game walkthroughs and strategy guides? There never has been a restriction that says textbooks "about videogames or videogame design" are not allowed, the only thing that has been restricted are the strategy guides, walkthroughs, and instruction manuals. Anybody is more then welcome to create a book that talks about Doom from a scholarly perspective: an "annotated text" on the storyline and narrative, a case-study of the Doom graphics engine, etc. These things are and always have been allowed. -- 19:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Out-of-copyright math textbook.
I found a copy of an old calculus textbook that is out of copyright and is in excellent condition; the content looks pretty solid as well. How do people feel about copying such a book in their entirety into Wikibooks? There are a lot of formulae in the book that would be easier for me to code using the formula_1 there is a - added afterwards. 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Confusion over The Completed Books.
I am confused over how books are chosen for the Completed books link section on the main page. Several, if not most, of those books do not seem very complete. They are filled with red links and include stubs in areas that could be expanded. Could someone please clarify this for me? Thanks.
Watchlist not updating.
The watchlist puzzles me, and it seems a bit arbitrary whether edits in watched pages actually show up in the list and show up consistently. I have seen edits in watched pages that never made it to the watchlist and entries in the watchlist that disappear from it (eg. edit 10:32, 26 September 2006 146.136.11.87 in microtechnology) - but can still be found in the history page of the modules that had been edited. Sadly the list seems to mainly show my own changes, where I would be much more interested in other peoples edits... I have seen the problem for some months. 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Language Instruction Audio (Pimsleur Methods).
The wikibooks are great efforts to provide instructional tools in learning foreign language. It would be great if there is a dedicated accompanying audio instruction.
Recently I've been using Pimsleur methods to learn spanish, and I find it very good. If anyone is an expert in liguistic and language instructional methods, and is interested in doing Pimsleur audio on Indonesian language, I'd be delighted to help to read out the phrases, since I'm an indonesian native speaker. However, I can't be the one who organize and edit the audio because I don't have experience in language teaching methods. Besides, I think "pimsleur method" itself is not copyrighted (am I correct) although there are pimsleur branded instructional recordings released by Simon and Schuster. Hence I'd think it's possible to replicate the method and record our own instructional recordings in order to make language instruction more accessible (currently the Simon and Schuster Pimsleur is really expensive!).
 01:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikistudy?
Is wikistudy like wikijunior, but for older?-- 12:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
2 new templates for new page patrol.
I created two templates and a category for use in new page patrolling.
Mostly created them because it allows tracking through the category system, when and don't seem appropriate. -- | 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)