Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Manual of Crime

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note: Moved stuff from Staff lounge:

Hi, I'm w:User:Func from Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with Wikibooks policies, but I wanted to draw attention to your The Manual of Crime, and its subpages like The Manual of Crime: Rape. Whether for legal reasons or simply human decency, may I suggest that a crime manual that includes content such as this:

Many rapists use a gun or a knife to threaten their victims with bodily harm to keep them compliant. You may hear things like "stop, please" but don't let that discourage you. Tonight is your night. Don't let anything stand in your way.

may not be the sort of thing Wikibooks should be hosting. Thanks. 70.20.207.198 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

There's a fundamental confusion in this discussion on why this particular quote is offensive and inappropriate. The above quote clearly promotes rape as a good activity that the reader should strive for, a POV position Wikibooks shouldn't take. This is for the same reason Wikibooks should edit or delete an engineering book that says you should or must build bridges. That's not how-to, it's advocacy without basis. A book explaining rape might explain that children are most likely to be raped by someone within (or close to) the family puts most readers in a better position to notice, prevent, or otherwise take appropriate action when the issue come up. (The old "stranger-danger" thing is pretty much a bunch of BS) Yes, such a book could tell would-be rapists that they are more likely to get away with preying on family members. But the idea that Wikibooks is going to stop rapes by locking down all descriptions of how rapes occur is pretty unlikely - you're more likely to prevent them, or more likely cause one and prevent five. I wish I could read a book on how thieves case a house, so that I could identify weaknesses in my own house. I also note that a book on making pot brownies has already been deleted from Wikibooks. Now, I haven't read it, so maybe it glorified the consumption of drugs in a POV way. But without any book available on this topic, a parent is less able to see the clues that their 14-year-old has a drug problem. The bottom line is that any old pothead can figure out to saute pot in butter and then add the butter to any food (or how to rape, or murder). It's the non-potheads, non-rapists, non-murderers that need the help of a Wikibook to see and understand what other people are doing.Twestgard 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[]

We could make plenty of arguments of the style that knowledge-is-power. However, there's plenty of other knowledge we don't find suitable for wikibooks (E.g., "A Book on the Things in My Living Room"). The argument isn't if this information should be known or not... we have no ability to control that; we can't make people come and read anything we write, and we can't stop people from reading things on other sites. The only issue is if this is something wikibooks, the website, should have. I've long said that this could be a wikicity instead. (And, supposing wikicities doesn't want it, that would be more of a clue that we shouldn't either.) MShonle 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[]

A while back there was a "dating" book called "Getting a Girl" that was no where near as vile as that, and we voted for that to be deleted (Jimbo himself jumped in). I'm sure that this should be deleted as well. MShonle 03:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

I've deleted the rape section on the spot, it's absolutely unacceptable. It's not describing how it's done by rapists (in the past tense) but rather how to do it (in the present and future tense) as well as providing advice and tips. We're not Raping For Dummies. The other pages may have similar fates... Garrett^Talk 04:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

I'm also concerned about the contents of How to Cause Havoc. For similar and obvious reasons. Garrett^Talk 04:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

We need to develop simple objective polices regarding this kind of thing. Deleting content simply because it's distasteful is far too subjective. It's a slippery slope we start down if remove material that can be used for crime, terrorism, subversion, or whatever your pet buzz word happens to be. That said, I agree that anything phrased in the way the Rape page was is not acceptable. But, anything that describes how those criminal acts have been done, and also how to avoid becoming a victim, in a detached way, should be acceptable. After all, knowledge is power, and it doesn't just benefit the criminals, but also potential victims. Geo.^T 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Also important to note that some things that are offensive, illegal, or distasteful to some nations and cultures are considered normal by others. I agree a rape how-to should be deleted, but its a very careful line you have to toe on these things. Growing pot, for example, is illegal in the US and legal in other nations. Any policy on these things should take the international status of the site into consideration. --Gabe Sechan 05:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, even rape and murder are legal in some locations (e.g. in international waters). Furthermore, the rape page did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, although I agree that some people might find it "tasteless". Personally, I find content about religion and pseudo-sciences tasteless, but does that mean I can just delete it without trial? - Aya ^T E C 15:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Note: See reasons under the Manual of Crime: Rape VfD.

• Delete - We need some credibility. Besides, this could eventually end up violating laws. Serge 08:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - The more I thought about it, the more I realized there is little instructional value in putting this all into one book. If a book on sociology gets into what criminals do, that's fine; If a book on electrical engineering gets into weaknesses of home security systems (a little), that's fine; If a book on chemistry mentions highly explosive combinations, that's fine. But I don't think we should put them all in a single book, without the editorial guidance of what is appropriate as an instructional resource. Maybe after a couple of years, when we have some more completed books, and we're being used in the classroom, we can revisit the issue of what a book like this would do to our credibility. MShonle 15:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Comment Keep Geo.^T 12:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC) - So we don't currently have any credibility?;) Maybe we may violate some law, somewhere. But, unless we actually are, then what's the problem? As I said in the Wikibooks:Staff lounge, just because information might, potentially, be used in an act of crime, terrorism, subversion, or whatever your pet hate happens to be, doesn't mean that we should delete it (that would start us down the slippery slope of censorship). But, I think that parts of The Manual of Crime could do with being rewritten in a more detached fashion. In the end, knowledge is power, and it doesn't just benefit the criminals (because they probably already know it), but also potential victims (to avoid becoming one). Geo.^T 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
• No Vote Yet, I'm undecided. We can certainly cover techniques without worrying about the legality of their demonstration--indeed several TV series teach burglar-safing by having a guy break into a house while the audience watches through his first-person headband cam--but they shouldn't be worded in a way that sounds like it's talking exclusively to those doing or thinking of doing these crimes. Garrett^Talk 11:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
• Comment - A few points here:
  • This sort of material (including the Rape chapter) might be considered valid under the first amendment. Could we be prosecuted for removing it?
  • If we should decide that, say, "any content which is written as an incitement to break the law (in the US), should be disallowed", then we should add that to our exclusions list on Wikibooks:About, thus similar content can be speeded without a vote.
  • If this sort of material was written as a subpage of "Jokebook", would that be acceptable?
  • If this sort of material was re-written under a book title named "Criminology - A guide to the psyche of the criminal mind", would that be okay? See also my comment from ages ago at Wikibooks talk:Staff lounge#Controversial Issues. [UNSIGNED]

• • • The first amendment only applies to the government. Individuals and groups other than the government can censor as they wish. So no, no one can be prosecuted for violating the first amendment, except a city, state or federal government.--Gabe Sechan 15:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• We should probably heavily revise and edit out the unsavory material. And then generate a warning template that would get applied to each page. We should also combine it with any other books or articles that follow the same vein. Additionally, a title change should be in order; something that can show that none of the material is being encouraged. (But perhaps I'm being too generous, perhaps we should just delete the whole thing and stick to textbooks, cookbooks, and jokebooks.) MShonle 14:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Follow-up: Let's not worry about breaking non-United States laws. I'm sure much of our material is forbidden in North Korea, for example. As for "UNSIGNED": No, we could not be prosecuted. The first amendment gives you the right to say what you want, but it does not give you the right to say what you want as a tattoo on everyone else. We control the content of these servers, and it's our privilege to exclude from it anything we want. A sub-page of the jokebook is unacceptable: these should have heavy warnings, and should not taken lightly. Also, this shouldn't be a guide to anyone's mind. It could be a guide to techniques, however. MShonle 15:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep- While I don't personally condone the topic, I'd say that illegality alone is not enough to outlaw a book. I'm for deleting things like the rape section, but there needs to be better reasons to delete things than content describing an illegal act in the US- there's plenty of things illegal in the US but not other countries (we are an international site), and there are valid reasons to violate US law (such as civil disobedience). Give me some reasons for this specific topic and I may well change my mind. --Gabe Sechan 15:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm with Geo and Gabe; material in the MoC could (potentially if not now) be useful for all sorts of people including victims. As G&G further pointed out, just because something is a crime doesn't make it wrong. The MoC rape page, if written in a different tone would not have been offensive and probably would have gone unnoticed. Kellen ^T 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

  Kellen, the question isn't "is this useful?" the question is "is this an instructional resource?" We've rejected far more "useful" material than this... on the grounds that wikibooks was not the appropriate place for it. I can't see any accredited college ever teaching things like this. MShonle 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

  See reply below. Kellen ^T 20:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep- Firstly, I think that the Rape section was totally inappropriate and justified in being deleted. However, the rest of the book does have considerable research value. I think the illegal content alone does not justify it's deletion, especially considering the value certain sections may have (such as the Burglary section) in preventing the crime. But, I recognize that not everyone may see it that way, and as such I have started to add Preventive Measures sections to the applicable pages. --Esoterica 18:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Oh. So all those other crimes are okay, but rape is not? This seems like a completely arbitrary division. We should either keep the lot or delete the lot. - Aya ^T E C 20:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • I felt the rape section was inappropriate due to it's tone, voice and presentation. Theoretically, I do not have a problem with a properly written and toned section, though I feel the idea is more than a little disturbing. --Esoterica 15:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Comment Wikibookians: Please, let's not discuss legal issues or free speech issues here. They are a total distraction. I know many of you have immediate reactions to promote freedom. But that is not the battle we are fighting here. The question is: Is The Manual of Crime an instructional resource? Is this something that you'd ever see in a class room? No, that's highly doubtful. I don't think things like this are either in the letter or the spirit of the WikiBooks project. Now, if wikicities accepts this under a crime group, or whatever, then it should be housed there. But even if it can't be transfered over there, we should delete it. It's just a worse and worse fit for what we all do. MShonle 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

  Agreed that legal/free speech issues are not the critical issue. However, I do think at least parts of MoC are instructional and although they would not be taught in a classroom environment, are still valid in the context of wikibooks. In particular, "Fighting" (framed as self-defense nobody would bat an eye), "LSD" (making of drugs is instructional), "Cannabis" ("growing cannabis" would probably be a non-issue), "Explosives" (think army manuals), "Buying" (valid for any purchase you don't want traced). The others are more shades of gray based on their content, but I tend to think they are still valid as instructional even if unsavory. To note, Getting a Girl was deleted since it was obviously POV, and of very poor quality. Jimbo expressed a concern that the existing policy would need to be modified if GaG was voted as a keep, since it didn't fit his view of what WB should be, but also noted that GaG could probably be re-written to fit WB -- I think that's the case here. Kellen ^T 20:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

  Let's not put words in Jimbo's mouth. I don't think it was the POV that was the issue with GaG. But if you want to talk about Criminology, we should say everything in a Criminology book. That way, the book could stay on topic and not also house unsavory content. As for the explosives, we could have books that contain that, but only if each and every page has big, bold warnings and disclaimers. But the book as-is is not suitable for WB. MShonle 21:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

  For reference:

  I have heard a number of complaints about the quality of this book, how most of the advice is ill-founded and counterproductive, the POV nature on some of its modules, and the general skew of the book towards het males. I don't know if a more neutral and refined relationship guide for all genders or sexual orientations has a place in a textbook project, but Getting a girl is certainly not it. It makes Wikibooks look like a joke. Dysprosia 01:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      I certainly agree that a textbook about relationships is a perfectly valid topic for us. But this book is certainly not it. I think you said this quite well. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  
  ...
  
  Let me close by making clear what I'm saying. If the decision is to keep the book, then I'm going to act to change policy so as to eliminate the book anyway. It seems unfortunate if it comes to that. A healthier process would be to reach a more clear understanding of the mission of WikiBooks, and the development of alternatives if people really want them. But I will not tolerate a book like this under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is offensive, sexist, and stupid. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  
  One more one last comment. I would support a vote about what to do about the book. Deletion is not the only viable option. My main point is that "accepting it" as-is, is not possible. It could be rewritten into a proper text, it could be moved (to wikicities, say), it could be deleted. I want the community here to feel empowered to make decisions. It's just that there are core principles of the wikimedia foundation that make some answers impossible. --Jimbo Wales 23:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  From Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion/Getting_a_girl. Kellen ^T 21:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Delete Not within the purpose of Wikibooks. Yann 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep - An important part of learning is the restraint to use knowledge wisely; The ability to apply your judgement and accept the consequences of your actions with the fullest possible understanding of the situation and no compulsion from an outside force. As to the question of the validity of this material as instructional, many of the pages discuss technique and consequences in detail with little PoV and also preventative measures for the crimes detailed. Certainly the book deserves review and improvement, but it does not deserve deletion. As for credibility, it strikes me that this is a problem for another time. If inquiries are raised by those to whomever is intended credible presentation, then it is time to deal with the issue. Pre-emptive credibility, however prudent, does not strike me as the goal of this project, which I believe would benefit from a case-by-case approach to credibility as related by those to whom credibility is desired. Forgive the awkward phrasing, if you can. 210.49.14.215 03:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[]

  For what it's worth, the Wikibooks project is not the sole entity responsible for all of learning, nor are we ever planning on taking up that responsibility. :-) The material in question will still be accessible over the web in some other way. But the source of the information provides a valuable signal. I'm sure that many of the stuff in this "textbook" can't even be verified. If someone were to see it on a site with less prestige than wikibooks then that would be a valuable signal. Wikibooks just doesn't covey useful information about what we say, it contains just as much useful information in what we *don't* say. For example, you won't find on our pages modules upon modules of pure random information. I'm sure random information has some use, but filtering the noise to get a stronger signal is much more useful. Less is more sometimes. MShonle 04:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[]

I certainly agree that a lot of the stuff in this article is hard to verify. With that said I think this is due to a nature of the material rather than a flaw in the information itself. I think this work has enough merit to stay here. Your objections certainly have substance, just not enough to justify to me complete deletion of the material. I can understand a holistic approach, but does license to delete the spurious to provide an environment which is itself instructional necessitate the removal of the morally or legally complex? I have heard that many of the servers are hosted in America, so I could understand removal of the content on legal reasons if it was challenged by an authority. Perhaps this book and other of its type deserve warnings or special sections? I'll stick with keep for now, but I understand if the community goes the other way. 210.49.14.215 12:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Delete While some of the topics covered are in and of themselves valid areas of inquiry, it is inappropriate to present this material in the context of a how-to manual for criminal activity. If this book is against Wikibooks policy, great -- if not, Wikibooks policy should change. The section on fighting is perhaps redeemable in a different context, as this is a skill that is legitimately taught. Other sections, in addition to being contrary to the Wikibooks mission (or at least outside the broader Wikimedia foundation mission), are poorly written and wildly inaccurate. Policy wise, I believe that wikibooks should present topics in a fashion that, assuming an audience of adults, is socially responsible. Presenting inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information about any dangerous activity is irresponsible. Presenting a purported how-to work on morally reprehensible activities (kidnapping, arson, etc) is not socially responsible. UninvitedCompany 02:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep Is the The Anarchists Cookbook illegal? No. It's sold on Amazon. Is Steal This Book illegal? No. It made the New York Times Best-seller list. Those however are copyrighted. We're making a GNU FDL alternative. The point is, it's reference, unless you attempt it and get caught it's not illegal to read for fun. Though, the rape section... I don't think that belonged there for sure. --AutisticPsycho 04:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Thanks, but we are not concerned about legality in this discussion. We are only concerned about if this book fits the goals of our project. Just as you see it that the rape section was out of line, others of us feel the whole book is out of line... and could continue a non-illegal existence over at wikicities, instead of on a textbooks project. MShonle 05:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]
    • The idea of moving the MoC to WikiCities has been rolling around for a bit with the idea that because it is not a deletion of the book, because the information is preserved, there should be no problem with moving it and no reason to keep it here. I feel that this is a poor decision because moving the book does change it. The forum in which information is presented changes how the information is viewed. If the project is moved to wikicities, it loses credibility because it ceases to be a textbook. It becomes less than the other books here because it is in a different place. Moving it outside of the wikibooks project also cuts down the ease with which people can find the information. These issues aside, moving the book to wikicities also sacrifices much of the control over the book. The book is currently written from a neutral, instructional standpoint with sections on preventive measures. This can be maintained because of the structure of wikibooks. Wikicities lacks the authority over the material that wikibooks has. In wikicities this book would rapidly become unbalanced. Because wikicities does not have the same network of dedicated admins and bureaucrats it lacks the same capability to deal with vandals. This work does not belong in wikicities. And you cannot use wikicities as a dumping ground for undesirable projects. --Esoterica 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]
      • Wikicities explicitly prohibits this kind of content, so moving it there is not an option (see content prohibited on Wikicities). If this books is deleted from here, it's gone forever. Wikibooks is a better place for it, because we don't censor particular types of content (like Wikicities does). I don't think that we should censor any kind of topic, as long as it forms an instructional book. With that said, I think that we should encourage contributors to rewrite this book, and others like it, to be instructional resources on how one can avoid becoming a victim of each particular crime (while not excluding any technical details about how each crime is committed). The rape page was obviously not phrased acceptably, but a correctly written version should be acceptable. Geo.^T 06:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Both you Geo and Esoterica have proved my points: (1) The location of a book matters. Wikibooks's good name is harmed by being associated with this book, while this book may be perceived as more legitimate in the eyes of others. Thus, the works of hundreds of other books is diminished by a reputation-killing book. I can just hear the teachers now: "What? You mean teach a class using a wikibook? Our school banned the whole site." And (2) If this material isn't even allowed on wikicities, we have no business at all having it on wikibooks.

    A point you didn't prove for me: (3) Give up using the word "censor," that's nonsense. We aren't stopping anyone else from putting things up on their own wikis or websites. We simply don't have that power. We only have editorial control over our own work. Censorship would be when we could control the content of sites we don't even own.

    A final point, (4) under no circumstances would a rape section be appropriate in any book titled "The Manual of Crime." If you want to discuss rape and the horrible effects it has on women and men, and the very sick individuals who do it, then it should go in a criminology or sociology book and be treated in that context. This is not a matter of how offensively written it is or not, so long as it is a how-to (instead of describing it in an academic context as one of the most violent offences possible) it has no place here. MShonle 07:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]

(1) Well, that is, assuming that schools were even willing to use wikis as instructional materials in the first place. Why not cross that bridge when we get to it? (Perhaps all of the "school ready" stuff could be put in a separate section/site, or something.) (2) How does that follow? From what I understand, Wikicities and Wikibooks are 2 entirely different sites. What they do should have nothing to do with us. (3) Sure, we have the right to censor our own site. But it is censorship. Censorship is expurgation: it has nothing to do with ownership. (4) Are we the morality police? How are we responsible for what people do with information? PurplePieman 16:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Just to be sure: Are you actually saying that instructional resources should go to "a separate section/site or something" while works of hate belong here on Wikibooks? You've got it exactly backwards. We are not a site created for the underworld; we have a specific goal and aim for this project. It wasn't like Jimbo once said "hey, let's do a wiki for the heck of it"-- it's a wiki with a purpose: to provide textbooks. Why don't you start your own wiki, and call it wikiunderworld, and allow anyone to post anything on it? It is naive and dangerous to mistake the right to say what you want, when you want, with the right to say what you want where you want. Are you equally upset the New York Times doesn't print what you want it to? Are you offended by the notion that graffiti is considered property damage? While we're at it, if you think "expurgation" is so awful, why aren't you up in arms about the NPOV policy, or the no-fiction policy? --MShonle 16:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[]

He's making the obvious point that a live wiki is completely unsuitable for classroom use. A teacher can not plan a semester if the book might get radically redone every couple months. That's just the good changes! Then there's spam, untrusted new info, and vandalism. Any legit school had better take a snapshot months in advance, then carefully merge in changes from an errata list. (like the "code freeze" that software development shops go through) Keeping a local mirror would be wise as well. So, assuming this textbook dream isn't hopeless for other reasons, it will involve a separate site for the "school ready" stuff and the errata. (note: errata, not live fixes) The less-refined books just don't end up on the protected school-ready site. If you accept that schools should block parts of the Internet, then blocking all live wikis is a given. I heard of one foolish teacher who pulled up the live wikipedia home page on a projecter... with the goatse.cx guy! Let's not kid ourselves. Nobody responsible would teach from a live wiki. AlbertCahalan 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[]

I think there is a danger inherent in editing, or deleting, based on the approval (or disapproval) of some outside entity. I think that Wikibooks should be sovereign and keep its own counsel, without the influence of outside organizations. (Isn't this one of the reasons we don't accept advertising?)

Outside entity? Which outside entity? This is purely a Wikibooks/WikiMedia Foundation issue. No one else has been or will be involved. --MShonle 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I'm talking about making decisions based around whether or not a school would accept them. PurplePieman 23:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I wonder if you understand the ramifications of "free information"? Of course, I am not endorsing "works of hate", because that would be a POV problem. But a "Manual of Crime" wouldn't be a "work of hate", of itself, any more than a cookbook or car repair guide would be a "work of hate". It's just sets of instructions. Reading those instructions, and carrying them out, are two entirely separate things. Suppose someone started a book called "History of the KKK"...but they tried to put the KKK in a positive light? That could be considered a "work of hate". But I think it would be edited for NPOV, NOT deleted entirely. This is how Wikibooks should work, right?

Of course, there are those who would argue that if we allow info about such "hate groups" that it would inspire others to emulate them. So, ignorance is better.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. Imagine you have a car, and I really want to put a bumper sticker on it. Maybe you'd let me, considering you like all possible forms of information or some such. But maybe you've also decided it's your own car... regardless of what you think the consequences of the bumper sticker would be it's your right to have nothing on your own bumper if you so choose. Similarly, it's your right to have just the stickers you choose. A book like this one is not what Jimbo had in mind. It's not what the people who gave money to Wikibooks had in mind. The position is not that we're sitting here worried about what the book would inspire (overall, I don't think there are many real world consequences if we kept it; I firmly believe people aren't idiots); it's just that we've bought our own car and already had a plan of what we wanted to put on the bumper. And we're politely declining the offer of a sticker we don't care to have. --MShonle 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I agree...except that you cannot speak for all users of Wikibooks in saying that this is a book we should delete. "We" have not decided any such thing (at least, not yet). Are you implying that consensus has been reached? PurplePieman 23:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Further, how is "The Manual of Crime" not a textbook? It sure looks like a textbook to me, albeit an unusual one.

I've said it a million times: A book on Criminology, and a book on Chemistry are totally appropriate and need to be written. This book doesn't. --MShonle 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Also, I am not "up in arms" about anything. I just think that things should be called what they are. Look up the definition of "censorship". Sure, we have the right to censor Wikibooks. But, it is still censorship. You see a book that has info you consider unethical, you want it deleted...and that is merely "editing"? Not censorship? PurplePieman 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

OK, we can call it censorship if you want. I don't think that's very useful, because think about it: You support the NPOV guideline. Thus you support censorship. That's why I was asking you if you were up in arms over our NPOV policy, because it can just as well be labeled as censorship (and I was not claiming you were up in arms, I was asking why you weren't up in arms). Why do I not throw that label around? Because we aren't talking about censorship. We've already decided to disallow fiction and to disallow non-NPOVs, there's no ambiguity about that fact. The people who've spent money on this site want this site to be that way. Still, if you are interested in having a wiki for everything I encourage you to spend the $5/month on a server with doorhost.net, and you can even install the mediawiki software on it! If you can't afford that, perhaps you can ask for donations. But in general I think people are more excited about donating to projects with specific purposes rather than very-general-no-results-to-ever-show exercises. --MShonle 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Whether or not I start my own wiki has nothing to do with the topic. And the existence of this book makes Wikibooks "too general" and doomed to failure? Wow! That's a pretty powerful statement. What do you base it on? Also, you seem to think consensus has been reached here. I do not. PurplePieman 23:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]

(<< moving back to the left) Actually I think he was boldly suggesting that your hosting of this content would be doomed to failure. The scope of each Wikimedia project must be clearly defined, indeed in order for the board to even look at it it must have a clear statement of what it will and won't cover. The central themes of the Wikimedia Foundation (basically those at w:Wikipedia:Five pillars) are unchangeable. Jimbo's basically said a repeat of his Getting a Girl statement, that if our organic discussion doesn't end with this work's deletion then he will reluctantly step in and forcibly change policy in order to get it deleted.

Now, say we keep this, and then I write The history of the KKK and include a chapter titled "How to Properly Lynch a Filthy Nigger". Now I could claim that it was written from the KKK's perspective, that it would be a great learning aid to help people see inside the minds of the Klansmen. What about the well-researched How To Psyche Yourself Up and Buy Supplies for a Successful Suicide Bombing? Or the brilliant step-by-step clarity of How To Gas a Jew? Now will we collectively be pulling in six digits quarterly once our generous sponsors find one of the Wikimedia projects is hosting that horrendous stuff?

Yes those examples went rather overboard but with good reason; if we allow the MoC, by definition we must also allow similar "in the mind of xyz" books, to keep one but exclude another would be a violation of NPOV. It's all or nothing. And that's what we must avoid at all costs. As for whether we have consensus, many of the keep voters have basically said "if it's rewritten". Now who is going to do that? The whole slant of this book is "I'll guide you through xyz" rather than "how xyz is done". I think a book on criminology is an excellent topic, and indeed I would help contribute what little I know to such a book were it ever written, but this book isn't it. The work involved in fixing this would basically mean writing this from scratch and using this book's chapter titles for inspiration on what topics to cover in it. Garrett^Talk 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I think I'll just leave it that my statement was that, for a textbook project to succeed, it better remain a textbook project. We've crossed the line and we gotta put our foot down, or else those horrible examples Garrett's talked about will be posted here. As soon as we get our policy in order (by reaching consensus on it, or through upper-level fiat) we'll be able to squash any further exercises of hate. For those "ultra-freedom-of-speech types," I once again recommend you start your own wiki and stop bumming bandwidth from a textbook project. --MShonle 02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep - Nothing is being harmed by association with a book, a book which deals with a topic such as this is just as contraversial as one dealing with sex statistics and techniques, that does not make it an invalid resource or a bad thing. If there were a manual on fighting which told you how to snap a person's neck or break their windpipe, people may be outraged, but that book would still be useful and a book which belongs within the scope of educational. There should only be one restriction on a book, if it teaches about a subject. If it gives information on the how to, the practical and scientific, the socio-political and religious all belong here if they are actually giving information to people. This book needs to be reworked a little, cleaned up, but deletion is not really merited. Nmontague 18:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Delete - I can't believe this is even an issue. --Mijokijo 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• I'd strongly suggest speedy-deleting the "Explosives" chapter as well, as being a danger to anyone who tries to follow it. The guy who wrote it is clearly incompetent: some of his "anti-static" precautions generate large amounts of static electricity, and his "homemade missile" will simply blow up on the launchpad. --65.101.119.25 21:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• I'd just like to point out the the explosives section is laughably wrong. The fertilizer bomb will, at best, cause a simple gasoline fireball. There is no discussion of proper purification, drying, proportions, mixing, packing density, and storage. In general, the instructions for causing detonation are useless. You can't just put two wires near each other and hook them up to a watch! Many types of explosive would require a truly awesome electric arc if you wanted to use such a brute-force method. If the other sections are as bad, one need not fear a wikibooks-educated mugger or rapist. The procedures just don't work. 24.170.177.130 00:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• It would be cool to have a decent book on explosives. Topics: rock blasting methods and business, building demolition methods and business, taggant requirements, manufacturing for commercial users, manufacturing as a DoD prime contractor, manufacturing as a subcontractor, federal licensing procedures, working with the DEA, sneaking past the DEA, underwater blasting, shipping within the US (and EU, etc.), shipping internationally, security, shaped charge theory and practice, armor piercing methods, environmental effects of blast emissions, local government and neighbor relations, emergency plans, what dogs can detect, what hard+soft X-ray systems can detect, what residue analysers can detect, selling to the oil and gas industry, liability and insurance... 24.170.177.130 00:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• • Hmmm, that would be interesting. The Big Book of Boom sprang to mind as soon as I read that. It'd be a very good thing to have on here actually, like instructions on how to properly blast out a rock from a field and such. Nmontague 20:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Keep. As I posted on the book's talk page, I have come across it while doing professional research and it does present some useful information, conveniently available at one's fingertips without having to make a trip to the library (which is what I was going to do). I am not vouching for its quality as it is at the present moment, but a potentially useful resource nonetheless.--81.42.156.202 23:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Comment. Please excuse this mini-rant, but reading some of the comments here I couldn't help to feel some sympathy for the seemingly growing numbers of users who claim that the Wikipedia (and related Wikistuff) is being taken over by a bunch of neofascists. I am sorry, but I am very suspicious of anyone who views the world through the prism of "good" and "bad", "vice" and "virtue", "us" and "them" categories--what are you guys afraid of? Finally, on a marginal note, I found this comment on a VfD: Until you register, your vote isn't valid --Mijokijo 16:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC). I would like to remind that user that the point of the Wiki.* projects is that anyone can contribute. That is one of the reasons why people like myself proudly choose not to register under a name, even if we do contribute regularly to Wiki projects. There you go then, thanks for listening.

Your vote is rightly viewed with more suspicion if you are unregistered since people will be less likely to recognize you as a contributing member of the community. That said, you are correct that it would be fallacious to discount unregistered users outright without checking their contributions. At least on wikibooks, under the ip you have there, you have few contributions, and your "vote" could be discounted if we were in the business of vote counting. Since we are consensus based, your argument should be read and considered, but ultimately your consent is not needed (since at least from the info I have here, you are not a member of the "wikibooks community"). Kellen ^T 03:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[]

I think also eventually most regular contributors register under a name (because it doesn't have to be your real name), which actually gives them more privacy, because the IP is not shown then. Also, people are free to have multiple accounts to organize contributions by topic better. Also, Kellen is absolutely right that this is not a democracy: some votes are not considered at all while other votes can be given higher weight given the reputation of the contributor. Anyway, given all of that, it's a pretty meaningless signal for an anonymous IP to claim that it makes regular contributions: signals are only important when they can't be bluffed. Sorry to heap on all of the skepticism. Perhaps you're one of the many anons who spellcheck, revise, add, suggest and make our books so much better. If that's true, all I gotta say is, what are you waiting for? Get a good fake name, like WombatRupskin, and start earning a rep! MShonle 04:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep- I see some definite usefulness to this book, but I think it should be watched carefully by the community for very problematic stuff like the "rape" section. Otherwise, I see value in sections like "Fighting" and such... again, as long as they're regularly and carefully edited to reflect proper technique so people don't inadvertently do something to get themselves seriously hurt.

• Delete - I don't know if anyone supporting this "manual" has considered this, but the very fact that something is called a "manual of crime" precludes the work's authenticity. I mean, really, are there any actual mobsters writing into the "Racketeering" section? Sensible burglars, robbers, and other criminals don't waste time writing about ways and means. Essentially, there is little to suggest that most of this "manual" isn't just a formatted sounding board, not for actual criminals, but voyeuristic crime enthusiasts.

I would also like to point out that many do not consider marijuana growing akin to armed robbery or kidnapping, and it's annoying to find it with those topics, along with Fraud and Racketeering, in a "Manual of Crime." The fact that cannabis exists under such a heading will almost certainly scare off and insult capable people that would want to contribute to the subject, as many "grow your own" types, including medicinal marijuana users, started growing to avoid the criminal element.--Stephen Tennant 03:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• Delete - This work could not possibly be used for educational purpouses. GoodStuff 08:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep - Definitely instructional. I don't see how this book violates Policy at all. However, the entire deletion of the Rape page by fiat, rather than simply deleting the inappropriate entries, has allowed the entire book to be brought into question. (Is rape a crime? Yes...) PurplePieman 17:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• Keep' - If you don't want to read this book, you don't have to. The harder you squeeze your fist around something, the more it slips through your fingers.

Given comments like this I think we should delete this. If "Getting a Girl" isn't allowed, then this one should be a slam dunk. My only caveat is that I don't have any desire to open the link. MShonle 03:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• Comment - It's part of the book The Manual of Crime. Perhaps this should be a vote for the whole book? - Aya ^T E C 03:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • I suppose that would depend on some of the entries. For example, I could see something like the anarchist's cookbook being a wikibook, or a book that details home security systems including their flaws. But that's only a "could." If we allow too much stuff like this it hurts credibility (further, I wonder how credible any home securities system book would be in the first place, just in terms of accuracy). If we want to limit ourselves to the classroom, then I say this could go. Perhaps we want to have two VfD dicussions? MShonle 04:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
• Speedied, we're not Raping For Dummies. It's one thing to describe how rapists work but it's another to instruct and give tips on such a thing. This has only one contributor and is NOT linked to as part of the main book it claims to be from. The rest of the book may need its own Vfd too. Garrett^Talk 04:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • FYI it used to be linked from the book's title page, but the link was removed by Esoterica with no justification given. Further, this did not meet speedy deletion criteria, so why did you just arbitrarily decide to delete it. I'm not saying that I think rape is a good thing, but the page could've been edited to include ways to protect yourself from falling victim to such a crime (e.g. rape alarms, self-defense info). In criminology, it's important to understand the psyche of criminals, which I believe that page demonstrated. - Aya ^T E C 14:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
    • It sure sounds like a speedy delete to me. Garrett's decision was not "arbitrary." MShonle 21:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
      • Really? Please cite the speedy deletion criterion which applies in this case. - Aya ^T E C 22:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
• Thanks. Have you looked at the user's other contributions too? There may need to be more cleanup. MShonle 04:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • I've had a look at them again, they all seem to have been resolved. Geo.^T 08:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Keep: Even though I think that that is sick, wikis are about the users. [UNSIGNED]

We aren't wiki-people who do textbooks, we're textbook-people who use wikis. This wiki certainly is not about providing a vehicle for hate. MShonle 06:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[]

There have been other things like this in the past which got deleted, and some which did not. We need to formulate a good policy on this for future reference. Any policy should take account of the availability of information from other sources. If you can get something from a library or work it out from a secondary education it should be allowed.

Examples:

Still existent

• How to Cause Havoc
• Jokebook:The Aristocrats The subject of a film that was advertised in at least 1 major national center-left paper. (and other pages from Jokebook)
• Getting a girl (for guys)
• Acetone peroxide synthesis Obvious from a secondary education.
• Cookbook:Space Cake - A recipe for cake containing marijuana.

Deleted

• Getting a girl - A text about getting a girlfriend (for men; a multigender version was also deleted)
• Cookbook:Special brownies - A recipe for brownies containing marijuana.
• Cookbook:Human - Using human flesh as a cooking ingredient (currently listed in WB:VFU)
• Beating Season - A "joke" book about "how to beat your wife". (currently listed in WB:VFU)

Where do we draw the line? Personally, I have no problem with any of this content, because I'm an adult, and I'm prepared to accept other people's opinions regardless of how "tasteless" I might find them. We must also remain aware that children can easily access this site. What do others think? - Aya ^T E C 21:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Note that perhaps even the Grand Theft Auto book might not be appropriate. (My take: GTA:SA should be in a gaming/walkthrough wikicity. Considering that the book generates so much traffic, it would really help WC out by bringing in all of that ad revenue. Keeping GTA:SA here is just leaving a lot of money on the table.) Going forward, the line should be drawn closer to text books. The big exceptions seem to be: wikiversity, the cook book, and the joke book. But until wikiversity.org, wikirecipes.org and wikijokes.org are all WM sister projects, here is the best place for them. MShonle 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Regarding GTA, you might be right (in terms of tastelessness). Note also that the scope of this site is more than just textbooks. It now covers anything non-fiction, since I can't find an adequate definition of the word "textbook" that isn't gonna cause endless arguments. See Wikibooks:About. - Aya ^T E C 21:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

From the wording on the page: "any book you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop is acceptable". That would include GTA walkthrough (at least the bookshop part, but not the local library), though I still believe GTA is not an adequate textbook, and it does feel like a waste to see all of that ad revenue for such a popular browser destination to "go away." However, you won't find in your local library or a local bookshop, say, the Anarchist's Cookbook, which is probably a book most similar to the one being discussed-- though the AC, I would claim, is less objectionable. MShonle 21:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Why would you expect a book from a bookshop not to appear in a library? And GTA is merely an example of a book about a computer games. If that is to go, surely all books about computer games should? I might expect to find a book with content similar to the AC in a library. - Aya ^T E C 22:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Because I've seen plenty of computer game books in bookstores, but have never seen a single computer game book in my local library. Indeed, probably all computer games should be moved to a wikicity. Given how popular they are, this could really generate some revenue! (And, somewhat paradoxically, lend more credibility that WC has usefull and rich content.)

Also, I think this point is important, this is not a debate about books with "content similar to the AC". Nor is it a debate about the fact-checked, cleanly written, useful in classrooms, well organized book some of us may want MoC to be. It's about what MoC is right now, and as it is right now, it doesn't look like a textbook for a Criminology course at all. MShonle 22:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Aya, I believe it's a distraction to talk about this as an issue of "who is adult" and "who can access the site." The discussion is, what is wikibooks, and what do we want the project to be associated with? Children will always be able to find tastless stuff on the internet. It is pure hubris to act like this single project is the line that decides if they can or not. So, let's discuss the merits of wikibooks housing this class of non-instructional-use books. The Wikipedia has a lot of fringe material on it too, but it also has pretty strict standards on "not notable enough" content. We strictly don't allow fiction or original research... even though I assume you are adult enough to accept the existence of fiction and original research. I think we should add to that list of fiction and original research works that won't be in the classroom. As I've said before, books on Criminology are suitable, because that's a course that is taught. But this ain't no book on Criminology, not in it's current form. MShonle 21:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

This is not about "instructional" at all. All books are "instructional" from my POV, and it's a highly subjective term. I suggest avoiding using it in the future. This discussion is solely about boundaries of taste. - Aya ^T E C 21:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

I don't think it's about taste, it's about appropriateness for the project. Right now I think WB is suffering from some major "feature creep" by being so far removed from its original goals. MShonle 21:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Okay so we need a better definition of the project. Any ideas? - Aya ^T E C 22:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

It's my opinion that now, given that WC exists, we can be much more narrow about what qualifies as a wikibook. "Only in classrooms" is too strict, but "all non-fiction" is too permissive. Wikipedia maintains quality by restricting itself to encyclopedic entries on notable topics. We should maintain quality by restricting ourselves to instructional books on topics that would be brought up anywhere from Kindergarten to Graduate School. MShonle 22:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

I'm fine with that, but how can we word such a policy in a way which is not open to too much interpretation. If it's not worded well, future users will just spend too much time arguing about what is and isn't acceptable. This is why I suggested the fiction/non-fiction distinction, since (I hope) everybody knows the difference. Basically, if it's a book which gets a Dewey code, it's non-fiction. - Aya ^T E C 23:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

When talking about books of this nature, I'm wondering if a general policy about not allowing books which advocate breaking laws or setting up scams might not be a good idea. For example, a Wikibook "How to not pay taxes" might not be seen under a good light by the IRS (or other taxation authorities) if it talks about how to launder money and literally get away without paying any taxes through other than legal means (like a normal tax deduction discussion, which would be perfectly fine.) "How to launder money" would be a little more of a concrete example, or "How to kill somebody" or worse "How to kill the President of the USA" which would invoke some special laws in the USA and perhaps get Wikibooks or even all of Wikimedia shut down. Similarly anything like the University of Nigeria (a great parody site, BTW) might also be discouraged. Political revolution advocacy might also be a reason to remove a wikibook.

The tricky thing with a policy of this nature is that things which are legal in once country might be illegal in another. I think there are some laws which are generally universal (you shouldn't kill anybody, even if you don't particularly like them, and that theft is generally wrong in most cases) and these would be a no-brainer. A good example of something perfectly acceptable in the USA but not in Germany would be most discussions about the Nazi Party, especially if you are advocating the recreation of that party. NPOV issues would make most of that unacceptable anyway on Wikibooks, but anything having to do with Nazism would have to be under much tighter than normal scrutiny.

We certainly don't want Wikibooks to turn into something like Palidin Press. While I may have a political opinion to support groups that publish such information, they are also sticking their necks out politically in a manner that if done here on Wikibooks might jeopardize the rest of this project. I'm not even sure if Wikicities even wants to have Wikibooks like these either, which is perhaps something to ask Jimbo or Angela. I don't know of a place to put content like this, but if some brave soul wants to set up their own Wiki and host content like this, that is their privilege. I just don't think it should be hosted here on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 13:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

What is or isn't a wikibook? This section is for this deeper question.

Aya said:

I'm fine with that, but how can we word such a policy in a way which is not open to too much interpretation. If it's not worded well, future users will just spend too much time arguing about what is and isn't acceptable. This is why I suggested the fiction/non-fiction distinction, since (I hope) everybody knows the difference. Basically, if it's a book which gets a Dewey code, it's non-fiction.

I think fiction/non-fiction is too coarsely grained. So, here's a possible policy:

A Wikibook is an instructional resource that could conceivably, once it reaches , be used as the primary text for or a secondary text for some course, wether it be K-12, College, Graduate School, Adult Education, or Vocational Training. A course is anything that you could reasonably expect a city to offer a course on, in which the person enrolled in the course is considered a student. Thus, Yoga, Martial arts, Auto repair, and Computer setup would all be included. Excluded would be projects better-suited for an already existing WikiMedia project.

This is just a first shot attempt, but there it is.

I think the "no original research" needs to be better defined. For example, suppose someone wrote an entire video game, put up the source under GPL or public domain, and then wrote a book discussing how the game was written, and lent an expository view of the techniques and principles used to build the game. That would be a great instructional resource, even though the chapter on "how the dragon AI works" might be "original." So long as the book is instructive, it could be a valuable asset to have. MShonle 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Other ideas to consider:

• Direction: If a book doesn't appear to be "about" anything in particular, then there's no chance a distributed group of collaborators could turn it into a completed product. A book has no direction if the topic is too broad. Example: a module on "Humans" is too broad to turn into anything useful.
• Page minimums: If all that can be expected to be said about the topic is not at least 16 pages, then the book should either be merged with other books, or expanded with specific directions. A table of contents (or any other form of outline) with concrete suggestions could show that the book won't suffer from being too specific. Example: a module on how to do inductive proofs is not a book. But a module on discrete mathematics is.
• Any Ten Big Cities: If in any of the 10 big cities in America (or, the country of concern) you can take a class in the topic as a student, then it's an instructional guide. Example: "How to repair your car" would count. "How to play minesweeper like a pro" would not.
• Any Public School: If any public school, college, or university teaches the subject as a for-credit course, then a book on that topic would be a wikibook. That would include how to program video games, but would not include how to play them.

These, again, are first stab attempts to define what a textbook really is. Just like how a book needs to be not overly broad or overly specific, so must not our policies be. MShonle 02:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

And where these ideas are leading is that eventually (after the inappropriate but actively-worked-on books are moved to wikicities) we'll start a timer. When the timer expires, we'll move all books that appear to be abandoned into a special abandoned section. Then, we can see what books are still alive, and be sure each is on a bookshelf, and that each bookshelf is available within two clicks from the main page. We still need to acknowledge stubs, but the main cure for stubs is to get people to keep on writing. MShonle 03:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

comment - I'm hesitant to go about defining what wikibooks as whole is or is not. We have a substantial number of books and a substantial number of present and former contributors who have added to books that might be nixed by this policy. Though this is a community, we do not control the project as a whole, the hardware, software, etc. Thus, I think it would be appropriate for any large scale redefinition of what wikibooks is or is not to come from wikimedia. Kellen ^T 18:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Actually, Kellen, it's more like the other way around. There was a huge mess with Getting a Girl, and we somewhat postponed the "what is a wikibook" discussion for later. I believe that Jimbo wanted to give us the guidance that Getting a Girl was inappropriate, but didn't want to dictate policy for us. Indeed, Jimbo said he'd rather see the WB community decide standards. We can't keep passing the buck. It stops here, and now is the time to do this... we can take our time in doing so, but this issue must be addressed.

As for "nixing" books we obviously won't just delete good material: we'll be sure it has a home in some wikicity. The game guides in particular should be happy there. MShonle 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Yes, he expressed some desire to have the community set its policies, but what seems to be happening at least on this page is you and Aya bouncing back and forth with little visibility. If this is leading to a site-wide discussion I think that might be ok, but I expect it will be very contentious and difficult. Involving the "higher authority" may make things much easier. I'd also like to point out that Jimbo said: "I certainly agree that a textbook about relationships is a perfectly valid topic for us." which I think would currently fall outside the realms of what you are proposing. Thus I believe there is at least some ambiguity from above as to what the purpose of WB actually is. Kellen ^T 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

That said, I do agree that creating a definition of WB that is more specified would be a positive move as it would allow us to more clearly deal with VfD's/Transwikis through written policy. Kellen ^T 23:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Note that my proposals are exactly that, my proposals. I in no way expect to get it "right" the first time around. But there indeed are courses in sociology about relationships. But I don't think we'd ever want to see simply anecdotal stories about alpha males, except perhaps in a chapter on character development for a playwriting textbook. MShonle 00:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Another thought I had last night is to follow the example of Wikijunior, and specify which books we do want, by name, and disallow any others. This would certainly help prevent internal forking (i.e. we wouldn't allow both of "A History of Music" and "Music History").

Perhaps just one book per course:

• The important two
  • English
  • Mathematics
• The sciences
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Biology
• Languages
  • French
  • German
  • Italian
  • Japanese, Hindi, Russian, Arabic, Written Chinese, Mandarin Chinese, Wu Chinese, Cantonese, Portuguese, Korean, Bengali 24.170.177.130 01:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Spanish

etc.

...then merge all the other books into those. Anything which doesn't fit (like guides to computer games) would go to a Wikicity. - Aya ^T E C 14:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• This follows my idea (and I am thinking out loud here, and I am pleased with the discussion) that books need direction. That is, they need to be "about" something, that the something is well understood by several experts in the area, and other contributors can assist taking it to that goal. Perhaps anything where there is a multi-week course offered on the topic it counts as something instructional. Thus, allowing all courses taught in K-12, universities and continuing education, but discarding the single-day "get rich in real estate, NOW" huckstering kind of "courses". But there are some "obscure" and advanced topics that we wouldn't think of to create placeholders. For example, The Semantics of Lambda Calculus, though there are a dozen books on that topic, and courses taught in it. MShonle 19:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Writing coursebooks is just one of the things done here at Wikibooks, it is not the only thing, nor should it be. This exceedingly blinkered and academic-centric idea would have Wikibooks throwing out Beekeeping, one of the best books in the entire project! Uncle G 10:35:21, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: For each topic we could also have a spare book titled something like "Topics in X" or "Advanced Topics in X". Thus, if someone wants to add something to the music history book, but it doesn't actually fit, it could instead go into the "Topics in Music" book. Such a "topics" kind of book wouldn't have the direction we'd require out of other books, but could serve to keep the other books cleaner. Topics books could be more encyclopedia in nature, without any linear ordering. The hope is that, by having special books without linear orderings, that would shape-up the other books so that they wouldn't degenerate into topics books themselves. MShonle 21:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[]
    • Such a prescriptive design may fit for coursebooks. It does not fit with the rest of Wikibooks at all. Allowing books to grow organically is best. Uncle G 10:35:21, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• No. Very bad. Wikibooks is not just for subjects taught in schools. Manuals for equipment and books on playing games (computer or otherwise) are perfectly valid for Wikibooks, and have a long history here. This narrowminded idea would have Wikibooks throwing out Chess. Policies that are aimed at excluding vast swathes of existing content that has been here for a long time are exceedingly bad ideas. Uncle G 10:35:21, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• I'd like to start by saying Wikijunior essentially has no policy, although there certainly is a perception that there may be one. The current "policy" about starting new books in Wikijunior is completely untested as not even a single book has been through the process of going through a proposal, although I've certainly made a reasonable stab at it. I wrote this policy because I felt the previous "policy" was absolutely stupid: We won't allow anybody for any reason to add any new book, whether it is useful or not. If you don't like the three books we chose to launch this project, that is too bad and you can take your marbles elsewhere. Try Wikibooks, for instance.  ;)

  On the other hand, this may be an interesting "experiment" to try out here on Wikibooks. This is a major policy change, so it would be something that would be worthwhile to get a very large group of opinions from ordinary users here on Wikibooks, with a formal "vote" to see if we need to even go this route and a very large bold announcement on the front page of Wikibooks suggesting this is a major policy change that will affect how things are done here.

  The thing I like about the general "philosophy" of Wikijunior is that it is a slow growth approach that encourages existing content to be completed first before you move on to doing other projects. You are encouraged to try and participate in adding to the current books first in order to "get your feet wet" before you tackle something like a whole new book. In a way, each Wikibook represents a major project...akin to a Wikiproject on Wikipedia. I think for many reasons we ought to treat Wikibooks in a very similar fashion, and try to encourage people to think about Wikibooks in that manner...particularly people that are coming over to Wikibooks from Wikipedia.

  Another thing I love about this proposal is that it removes "Wikipedia"-like articles almost completely from Wikibooks, at least for initial book stubs. That may still happen within a book project, and Macropedia issues are still going to be debated, but at least there would be a place to put them and each separate book project could create its own set of guidelines within the small group of "authors" that are participating. By creating a "new Wikibook" forum for people who want to start a new Wikibook, the "spur of the moment Wikibooks" (like the recently created and I see deleted Klingon-language Wikibook) would be stopped and at least a little bit of a vetting process would occur, including potentially gathering interest in starting a new Wikibook. Inappropriate content could be culled or redirected even before it gets started, while the current policy is "place it on Wikibooks and if we don't like it we'll delete it and throw it onto a trash heap." I don't think that is too friendly to new users.

  It also removes the "worry" about Wikipedia using Wikibooks as a dumping ground, as new Wikibooks would have to be proposed and vetted here on Wikibooks before the new book gets started. I think a proposal like this would help to define the relationship of Wikibooks to the rest of the Wikimedia projects. The New Project Proposal policy on Meta is a joke at the moment, and I've spilled a lot of (virtual) ink on the subject, but if done here on Wikibooks I think it would have a much more positive impact. Creating a new Wikibook really isn't that big of a deal, and brand-new contributors to Wikibooks should certainly be encouraged to start one. All we are suggesting here is perhaps the best way to start a Wikibook may not be to drop it on a bookshelf and start entering content. I think the process can be improved regardless.

  P.S. I think this whole discussion in this section perhaps should be moved to a general policy discussion page than something on "The Manual of Crime". A vetting process like discussed above certainly would have helped to commit Wikibooks to keeping this Wikibook and avoided the whole VfD discussion in the first place. --Rob Horning 10:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[]

  • Your conception of "Wikipedia using Wikibooks as a dumping ground", repeated ad nauseam, is an entirely false one, and is simple parochialism. Any editor who had actually looked at what comes through from Wikipedia would form the opposite conclusion. Almost all of the content that comes from Wikipedia is useful and appropriate. It does not come here arbitrarily. Editors are making good use of Wikibooks, linking Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource together to form coherent wholes. Wikibooks is already defined to the rest of the Wikimedia projects, with guidelines both on Wikisource and on Wikipedia showing some of the relationships between the two and how the projects can be — and have been — used in combination to good effect. Your various arguments that use as a premise this false picture that you paint are thus fundamentally flawed. Uncle G 10:35:21, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

• I say that Wikipedia uses Wikibooks as a dumping ground because I've seen it. Until I started to raise a stink about it at Meta (and Foundation-l) and rewrote some "policy" statements there on Meta as well it seemed as though every other new project proposal had a statement of the effect "try this on Wikibooks first". Wikiversity and Wikijunior are very classic examples of this attitude, and it is very apparent that Wikibooks is not to be the incubator for new general projects that are not book-based in nature. As far as Wikipedia is concerned in general, yes, there are a great many people at Wikipedia that do have a clue about everything that is going on, but there are so many editors at Wikipedia that IMHO Wikibooks can get overwhelmed very quickly if even a "typical" sized Wikiproject group decides to come over at once and push for new policy changes and other issues. I also claim the right to refuse content from Wikipedia if editors there don't want it either, and feel that Wikibooks does not have to take content from Wikipedia just because some people at Wikipedia feel it should be here. That there may be some merit to having it at Wikibooks is true, but there needs to be editorial independence between the two projects. Policies on Wikipedia do not have to be implemented on Wikibooks, for many reasons. --Rob Horning 21:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[]

• • • • I think that by moving lots of Wikibooks to Wikicities then we're gonna piss off a helluva a lot of people, who might not come back...so perhaps being quite as restrictive as Aya's proposal might not serve long-term good...and also, there are no a priori reasons why English is important, and something else (like computer games, or relationships etc) isn't. On the other hand, some Wikibooks are quite absurd and will never develop into anything remotely like instructional resources. So what if we had a major drive for mergers, restructuring etc...to clean up....and then had a vetting procedure from then on? But I agree in principle to Aya's proposal that we should have I suppose an idea of larger books encompassing more. This would allow for far easier "teaching" from these books and also it would be so much easier to avoid duplication. A smaller amount of books might also help collaboration.

I like the project proposal idea. For wikicities, for example, you just can't create a server name and start going... it has to be something that a reasonable number of people would be interested in. What I like most about the Getting A Book Proposed First idea is that it shows what an undertaking a book project is. Many people start by thinking "well, let me start typing up what I know on the weekend, and by Monday I'll be done." And then the book gets abandoned, because the topic itself was so insular no one else knows how to continue writing it. Perhaps books that would get an automatic approval would be anything taught at a fairly broad definition of educational institutions; it's the books that have no corresponding academic, hobby or trade course that would need to go through an approval process.

Now, just to be clear, my proposals here are just ideas being put out. In no way do I want to see the Chess book go. I think the Chess book is perfect for wikibooks. (It just so happens that you can take courses in chess and be a chess student, but maybe some of you don't see it that way.) As for Beekeeping I'll put my personal opinions aside and say that that's a legitimate vocation, so it could very well be a primary or secondary text of a trade course. MShonle 17:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Here's the text of what I asked Jimbo about this all, and his reply. Only the links have been edited:

(See the original here.) MShonle 16:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Note: This page was created to help keep stuff from filling up the main VfD page, and instead this huge discussion ensued. I'm not trying to kill the discussion, but it was leaking on the main VfD page and the comments really should be kept here. I'm doing this to keep the main VfD page cleared of clutter from this discussion. --Rob Horning 00:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Visit the section of the page with Jimbo's comment. I asked him on his wikipedia page for guidance, and it looks like this book should be on its way out. Perhaps Geo (or someone else) could move it to his user page for a couple of weeks, so that people interested in serving it on their own wikis can get a copy. (Because it won't be on any WikiMedia or Wikia site.)

I believe it's in the best interest of the project if we follow up on the other consequences of such a policy, including transwiki'ing the game walkthroughs over to the revenue-generating wikicities. (As I said before, the walkthroughs are so popular, it would be a shame to "leave money on the table" like that by not getting AdWords revenue. Further, I think transwiki'ing the high-quality walkthroughs will help legitimize wikicities as an exciting site to go to.)

Moving forward, I think now we can have a much better idea of the scope of wikibooks. I think most of the favorite books will have no problem remaining here, though this does make it harder to justify the jokebook. I think after we get over this final hurdle, this entire VfD process will be fairer, more consistent, and less of a struggle. Fiat lux. MShonle 19:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Hm, I was thinking of asking Jimbo myself but didn't like to bother him. But I'm glad you did. I agree with all of this. I've already organised a new home at the Gameinfo Wikicity and started a Grand Theft Auto III guide as a way of testing the water in advance, and it's already had a good amount of interest considering the game's age. With newer things like San Andreas, The Wind Waker, etc. moved over, I'd say there will certainly be more interest in this wikicity and wikicities in general. And more money...

However I do think we need to have a site-wide vote on the game guides. Not everyone sees Jimbo as "God" on all issues. :)

As for the books that don't probably fit, I think we need to set up some sort of voting system or administerial board to decide whether content stays or moves. For example Monopoly doesn't fall within this new limit, but does Chess? And Poker? And so forth and so on. Garrett^Talk 02:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[]

The next order of business should be to update our exclusions and inclusions list. And I agree with the wikicities policy of not having hacking/cracking materials either; we should include the WC policy as a subset of our own. I think the games will be tough. Chess seems to fit, because it is something that is actually taught, with real apprenticeships. Poker and Monopoly are harder... some of it could fit in with game theory (poker) and economics (monopoly). MShonle 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Yes, the Google-based rules are a good place to start but we need to clarify them more. For example I'd welcome a book about NESHLA, and if that included step-by-step instructions to making a Super Mario 3 ROM hack in order to better teach the language then so be it, so long as the guide itself doesn't provide any form of ROM links. However I would be opposed to a guide aimed at hacking NoCDs because they have no legal uses whatsoever, thus resulting in a textbook that would never be taught. The Google rules are a catch-all, which we don't really want to become. So whatever illegal-content grounds we cover, we must be sure to allow certain acceptable uses of potentially-copyrighted materials. Garrett^Talk 04:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Indeed, another standard must be to ask what is OK in the US. Looking at some of the VfD dicussion on this issue I'm a bit disheartened that some think it's somehow wise or responsible to not care about US law. Moreover, the content we choose to have on this particular site (because we have no authority to dictate any other site) is a completely separate discussion than what is allowed on the internet at large.

Thinking about board games some more it occured to me that maybe we could allow games that have legitimate, international competitions. That certainly includes Monopoly and Poker, but would exclude less popular board games (or the popular board games that are just purely chance). MShonle 05:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[]

keep, or at most edit/comment. Crime already exist, and I think that is ok a book that describes it. Some parts may be edited and written in a more detached way.

Given Jimbo's comments on the matter, it would appear that the deletion or substantial reduction of the MoC is very likely. However, I beleive that this book contains too much valid content to delete outright. Several of the pages, such as the fighting page, could become (with some minor changes) separate (and presumably acceptable) wikibooks. The recipes in the explosives section could be moved to the chemical synthesis wikibook, and much of the other content should be preserved at least for a period so that it can be cannibalized for other wikibooks. Additionally, finding hosting on another site for the book is another option. All of these possibilities would be eliminated were the book to be simply deleted. Therefore, I think that if the decision is made to delete this book, then the actual deletion should be postponed for a period of time to allow us to figure out what to do with all of the content. If you have any ideas, comments, suggestions, or opinions, please share them. Additionally, I keep a relatively current copy of the wiki code for the pages on my computer in .txt form. If anyone wants it without copying and pasting from each individual page, I can e-mail it to you. --Esoterica 00:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[]

That's close to what I've been thinking. I think an admin like Geo should keep a copy of it under his user pages.

Note that incorporating pieces into other books will be subject to approval of those books' authors. For example, the chemistry writers might not necessarily want the explosives sections, even in modified forms. When we solidify our policy I think it's also likely anything in the future advocating breaking the law will be subject to speedy deletion. MShonle 01:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[]

I cannot think of a reasonable objection to the addition of properly worded guides for the synthesis of certain explosive chemicals, under laboratory conditions, to the Chemical Synthesis wikibook. There already exist pages on that wikibook which detail the creation of chemicals which can explode. Additionally, I was unaware that the authors of a book had any special decision-making powers. --Esoterica 23:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[]

In the interest of an open discussion here are some reasonable objections: Some may not want to be associated with a project related to bomb making. Others might not think of it as important enough information to share and believe that wikibooks should maintain a more academic presence. Others might believe it to be immoral to even include such information. Still others might say including such content will hurt our fund raising capabilities. I would assume you wouldn't agree with any of these objections, but they are reasonable.

I think you can make a case that this information should be available somewhere, but it's a much harder case to make that this information needs to be available here at wikibooks. Again, we aren't the Internets. We're just a little sliver of it. Most arguments along the lines of spreading information or speech-for-the-sake-of-speech (even only in the cases when it is properly worded) fail to explain why wikibooks must play that role. (Indeed, if it was such an important role, the argument maker should spend their own resources to distribute it. And if they don't wish to, that should tell you something.)

Largely I think it would be ok for a standard chemistry book to explain some explosive reactions: certain material that any chemist must know probably must include that discussion. But there is a tremendous difference between teaching the principles of chemistry and merely showing the procedures to make explosives. Wikibooks cannot and will not ever become a handbook for terrorists.

Also, it's very natural for the authors of a book to decide the content. Partially it's through building consensus and respecting decisions made by those who provide the most helpful content (we want such helpful people to keep on writing, after all, instead of being discouraged and leaving the project). Another aspect of it is that books need direction and guidance. If books just picked up any information that anyone fancied they would be scattered, hard to read, hard to understand and completely useless. Sometimes it's the case that even useful, well-written, non-violent, socially responsible text will get cut. For example, a calculus book shouldn't be cluttered with the very important, interesting, graduate-level constructions of axiomatic set theory. Such material should be put in its own set theory book instead, and the calculus book should only contain the set theory it actually needs to instruct about calculus. MShonle 00:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[]

I suppose ultimately the answer to this issue lies in the definition of what Wikibooks is. As there is no set, easy definition (or perhaps there are too many), there is some confusion about this. The other disagreements center around formatting, tone, and wording, and are easily solved once the overarching issue is resolved. What wikibooks needs is a new definition under which the status of a work like the MoC is clear. As such, the debate on this page is largely inconsequential, if the decision is made to exclude or include the MoC in the definition of a Wikibook, no consensus on this page will change the fate of the book. Therefore, there needs to be some form of decision made concerning wikibooks policy. I do not know what the policy for these changes is, but it needs to happen so that this book can be eliminated or allowed to grow. I presume that the VFD pages are not the proper forum for such a debate. --Esoterica 04:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[]

You've actually identified the case exactly. It has already been decided that books like MoC will not be permitted and this book indeed will be deleted. We are in the process right now of deciding what else is or isn't appropriate for a WikiBook. It's a long process, because we've discovered that what sound like good rules end up being inadequate. It's iterative.

It is my hopes (personally) that WikiBooks can get over some of the anti-elitism of the Wikipedia and be more of an academic project, as opposed to a free-speech-for-all project. In my opinion, we sorely need free textbook resources, while we already have a free-speech-for-all resource anyway: it's called the internet. The closer to the dark areas WikiBooks goes the less value it will have in the very communities we need to be writing books. A visit to the list of recent changes will show you most of us are either working on something very academic or technical, or we're working on a video game guide. The game guides might or might not move over to Wikicities (which itself is an exciting project). But given what the recent changes list is, it's pretty clear to me that the dark areas are a niche interest at best. Yet, they carry high costs for everyone else (namely, bad associations, more schools blocking the site, less academic interest, more opportunities for media ridicule, lower moral standards, and a system that attracts the very problematic entry of MoC that has caused this whole discussion in the first place, which since has been deleted). WikiBooks will still welcome controversy: academics itself, and its love of knowledge, always leads to controversy. MShonle 05:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[]

You have mentioned that the decision has already been made. Where has it been made and by whom? Is there a way for me to see a record of the discourse? I am asking out of curiosity. Also, given that definition of wikibooks, I agree that the MoC is an inappropriate project. --Esoterica 01:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[]

The way I see it Jimbo is giving us very good guidance, but we feel like we need to create a concrete policy first, so as to be fair to future contributors (so that they won't find out later that their work was in appropriate for the project). It was started on this page and is now in a preliminary voting process at Wikibooks:Policy/Vote (the talk page for that link has all of the action; we're still trying to decide what to vote on). I encourage you to look at the page and the discussion and for you to provide feedback. MShonle 01:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Having looked at the page, I see no decision to delete this wikibook, or any consensus on a definition of Wikibooks which would exclude the MoC. --Esoterica 02:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[]

For the decision look to both Jimbo's message on his wikipedia page (linked to from here) and every administrator's reaction to it. Jimbo's message is not fiat (because he hasn't even looked at the book) but he knows more than anyone else who is here what wikibooks is. The vote is essentially to find the general rule that explains why MoC will be excluded. That is, either through reasons because it is not a legitimate course, or because it is a violation of wikicities policies, or because you would not find it in your school library, et cetera. Anyway, to make the story short, we're still trying to decide what is or isn't a wikibook. For example, I feel that books on hobbies should be allowed, but not game walkthroughs. However, I'm finding it very hard to find the rule that would differentiate game playing with hobbies like chess. MShonle 04:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Along with the other valuable criteria that have been discussed in order to determine what material is adequate in wikibooks, I'd like to contribute a couple.

We should consider the MANIFEST MOTIVE behind a book, not the valuable insight that could come from analysis or "metareading" [i.e. reading a book not to follow it's content (a manual or textbook) or the intent of the author (e.g. a work of fiction, meant to be read for pleasure) but to analyse it and understand the what-why-how-etc of it being written, this is, to understand the motive and extract metainformation]. For example, it's quite valuable (in fact, it's very important) to read "Mein Kampf" in order to understand why Hitler wrote it, what went on inside his head, the origins of his ideas, etc. But "Mein Kampf" is not valuable for its manifest motive. In fact, it is detestable. Those who follow it as a textbook are detestable as well.

What would happen if someone posted a "Manual of Ethnic Cleansing" on Wikibooks? We would have the same problem that with the "manual of crime". But here's the thing: we shouldn't pay that much attention to the possible benefits of analysing such a book to understand ethnic cleansing, its mechanisms, and the workings of the mind of the author or the people who would use such a manual. Don't "metaread", because the wikibooks are meant to be read, not "metaread" That's not what wikibooks is for. Instead look at the manifest motive of the book. In this case, the manifest motive would be to teach how to massacre people according to their ethnic group in an efficient, industrial way. Forget about the value of metainformation such as "We could learn how this maniacs develop ther methods" or "let's study how this psycho's mind works, how the author sees people as mere objects to be gotten rid of". Since "how to commit genocide" is not a valid manifest motive for a wikibook, it should be deleted.

With a different title, "how to commit genocide" would be an unsurprising part of the curriculum in some parts of the world. Wikibooks isn't limited to the USA, is it? AlbertCahalan 21:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[]

The same thing happens with "The manual of crime". There could be valuable metainformation about the crimes, the mind of the author, how criminals act, the probability that this text was written by some morbid enthusiast of crime who has never committed a serious crime because first he would have to move out of his mother's basement, etc; but a Wikibook is meant to be READ, not metaread, analysed for metainformation, or something like that. Valuable information in a Wikibook should be EXPLICIT, not hidden behind a manifest motive such as to teach people how to hurt, rob, rape or destroy someones life in assorted ways. It doesn't matter that this "manual" is laughable, or that the "criminal" (read: teen spaz) will likely get him/herself hurt/arrested/killed instead of successfully doing anything that this text mentions: all the more reasons to delete it. Even if there could be valuable information implicit, located through an analysis and interpretation of the text, (I mean, even "Mein Kampf" is valuable from a historical and psychological standpoint) since it's MANIFEST MOTIVE does not conform to something that could remotely be legitimately taught in some kind of legitimate educational facility, then the choice is easy: Deletion.

That wikibook about cheating in exams should be deleted as well, I believe. The metainformation that someone could use to catch cheaters or avoid cheating in his/her classroom (a teacher) is interesting, but it's not a book about cheating as a problem in school and/or defeating cheating methods; its manifest motive is teaching how to cheat. I'm not saying the information should be lost, or that it is not useful in some way; it just doesn't belong in wikibooks.200.40.105.227 09:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[]

You might be interested to read Wikibooks_talk:Policy/Vote#A_directly_enumerated_WikiBooks_policy which is an attempt at wording precisely what is appropriate and not. Please do comment if you find any opportunities for better wordings, find questionable boundaries, or have questions/disagreements. MShonle 03:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Yah, but who decides what the MANIFEST MOTIVE is? "Meta-reading"? What? Wikibooks already has the VFD process to determine what should be deleted. This suggestion sounds like it would make things more complicated, not less. Unless the author(s) can be questioned directly, any analyses of their "MOTIVE"s is mere conjecture. PurplePieman 19:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Deletion. Now! [kolossos]80.185.19.96 16:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[]

I agree, Deletion. Now!--152.163.100.5 15:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC).[]

you folks seem to be relying on jimbo's assertion that the subject matter of the book isn't taught in any organised courses, but what about, say, criminology, or, say, "police academy"? surely such matter is taught there. 24.146.21.169 09:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[]

Frankly, the section on explosives gives some interesting information on chemical synthesis.

Is there a copy of the book in its last version? If there is one I would like to translate it and transfer it to the German Wikibooks, so the content will be conserved. If you own a copy, please contact moc.20.scaramanga@spamgourmet.com . Thanks!