User talk:Dan Polansky

Welcome, Dan Polansky!

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.--Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you synchronize such substantial changes to the book table of contents with the print version and navigation template? Thanks. --Derbeth ^talk 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. I have left out the index from the print version, as it does not seem to be useful for it, and from the navigation bar, as that one omits appendices, or most of them. CMIIW. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. --Derbeth ^talk 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Derbeth ^talk 09:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're right, no pages like "XY/Contents" should exist. However, lots of books violate Manual of Style and create "cover page" on page "XY" and create table of contents on "XY/Contents"; what's worst, some even name chapters like "XY/Contents/Chapter name" to get free backward links to table of contents, which is dreadful. Book table of contents should always be placed on page named the same as the book.

This was also the case here: JavaScript was first a cover page with categories and interwiki, than someone came and removed all this, making a redirect. I restored the cover and fixed the TOC.

The problem is that English Wikibooks has no policy on cover (title) pages and currently there's a total mess. Some people put categories and interwiki here, other put there, sometimes there are some different sets of both on both pages. Noone knows where to link to from bookshelves: to table of contents or to cover?

On Polish Wikibooks there's a clear policy: all interwiki and categories should be only on cover page if it exists and all links to book should lead to the cover page, not table of contents. That's the best solution, because if there's a cover, readers should see it first when clicking on book title (otherwise the cover would not make any sense); in the same time the table of contents cannot be a subpage ("/Contents"), because this would break automatic backward links.

We lack such policy here. Unfortunately I'm not very active on Wikibooks, so I don't have time to fix it. However, if you have time, it would be good to start preparing it. --Derbeth ^talk 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for elbowing myself into this discussion, but just a quick note. There is a bit of a mess with the page structure, but there is a clear preference by the current community for placing an overview of the contents on the book main page and the MoS strongly recommends doing it that way. We do, however, give editors some leeway to do things the way they like. Better a poorly structured book than no book at all (structure can always be fixed once they come to their senses ;-) ).

We don't have bookshelves any more (these have been replaced by subject pages) and they are being phased out. Links should always point to the main page. If book contributors want readers to start on a cover/splash page, then so be it.

As for the state of affairs, this derives from the fact that many books were created well before the manual of style had taken hold. Most of the language books are very similar and may have been formatted by a small number of people (many seem to be minimal courses from some Peace Corps program or something similar) and/or be the case of a meme spreading. I've been fixing a few, but it takes a while. If you plan to do work on this, make sure to check whether the books have active contributors before doing anything drastic. --Swift (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just removed your speedy delete request because the page still is part of the book structure. There are also other pages that are similarly empty of content. It would be better to deprecate these pages before deleting them. Leaving red-links would be even more confusing to future contributors. --Swift (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. How do I tag a page as deprecated? I used to do it using {{Editor note}}, but is there a standard way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If a page qualifies for speedy deletion, you tag it as {{delete}} as you did. But before that, it's generally a good idea to deprecate it by removing links that point to it. This shows that the page isn't used any more, helps make sure it won't just get recreated later and leaves a clearer replacement-structure for future contributors.

You can see what links to the page you are viewing by clicking on the "What links here" link in the toolbox in the side-bar (on the left in the default skin).

Not that this procedure needs to be overly rigid and formal. In the case of deletions, content gets the benefit of the doubt and your fellow Wikibookians may prefer keeping it if they don't know where you plan to take the book. --Swift (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

What exactly are you doing to the English book/project? I spent a long time creating an 'English' page which would serve to direct users to the specific book they were looking for as 'English' on its own was too general. Why couldn't you have just included all the other books on the English language that you'd found into the original 'English' page rather than 'subject:English language'?--ЗAНИA ^talk 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I post my reply here: Talk:English#Splitting_again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I guess I should also post a reply here: I have split again several books on English that you have "merged" by adding the prefix "English/" to them. I did it per Wikibooks policy that Wikibooks books should not have their subject in their title as a prefix, only a book title. I was aware that I was undoing your move. After careful consideration, I decided to take that step, as I came to the conclusion that your move--adding the prefix "English/" to the book titles--was after all not a good idea. At least one user---Martin Kraus--agrees with my move, as follows from Talk:English#Splitting_again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dan, I think this English category has to be ordered somehow, I wrote more about that in English Grammar talk page. In short, I think that there should be three grammars for different levels, called something like Comprehensive English Grammar, Advanced English Grammar and Beginners English Grammar, and these should be separate from learning modules. All other grammars should be deleted. Otherwise, people have done great work, but there is still no certainty. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I guess you are referring to Talk:English Grammar#English grammars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dan,

Subject pages such as the one you created at Shoe belong in the subject name-space (just prepend "Subject:" to the title). As for that particular case, I would recommend a slightly more subject-oriented title such as leather-works, crafts, or something similar. Note also that a book can belong to multiple subjects. The hierarchy isn't very good, but you can browse the existing ones from the Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office. Adding new subject pages to that hierarchy will increas its accessibility and make it easier to maintain. --Swift (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dan. I noticed you've been more active than anyone else on our Rhetoric and Composition wikibook, and I wondered if you'd like to get involved in our efforts to revise it this semester. I have a group of four graduate students in my Digital Rhetoric and Pedagogy class, and I intend to make editing this book part of the syllabus. If you're interested in helping out, perhaps by focusing on the most problematic areas, let me know. I can be reached here or at matt@mattbarton.net

Thanks,

Matt

Thank you for the offer. I am now busy with other things, I am afraid. I am looking forward to seeing that nice Wikibook revised by you and your students. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some notes to myself and others about C++ Programming Wikibook. The Wikibook seems to have been hijacked by Panic2k4 (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count). The editor's tactic used to gain editorial control over the book seems to consist above all in controlling the talk page Talk:C++ Programming. He asks editors to post to one of three other places (Talk:C++ Programming/Content, Talk:C++ Programming/Conventions and Talk:C++ Programming/Q&A), and he removes discussions from that page without properly archiving them. As a consequence, it is hard to figure out what has been discussed and what the consensus has been.

I have discovered this when I tried to remove a big text from the main page of the book. I wanted to post on the talk page what I was doing and that User:Ruakh has done the same thing before, only to find that the talk page contains some oddly formatted sections, and that it is nowhere clear where a note on my change could be posted. The talk page was in this revision.

Further digging around in the history of the talk page has lead to the discovery that the user has been a subject of arbitration in Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4_vs._SBJohnny. My reading Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4_vs._SBJohnny/Plaintiff_Charges has confirmed my impression of what the user was doing to C++ Programming.

If C++ Programming Wikibook is to be brought to sanity, the foremost task is to prevent the user from further hijacking the talk page Talk:C++ Programming, so that various editors can start posting their supporting and opposing posts on various subjects concerning the book. It is essential that posts to that talk page are allowed to remain there for an extended period of time, such as several months. Archiving should only take place when the page becomes too long.

Panic2k4 has complained about my edits on the talk page of Adrignola at 02:28, 31 March 2012.

This post of mine seems best posted to my talk page, as this is the only page over which I exercise extensive editorial control, a page from which posts cannot be removed by user Panic2k4 or any other rogue editor. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dan, I've noticed that you have made significant contributions to the Rhetoric and Composition textbook as well as the C++ Programming book. I have been working with the Saylor Foundation to produce new textbooks on these subjects. If you have time and are interested we would love for you to check out our book pages (Saylor.org's English Composition and Saylor.org's C++ Programming) and possibly make some contributions! --Azin (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there any particular reason why you removed some of the Links like cmd.exe in Windows_Batch_Scripting? --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 05:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think Wikibooks should only rarely link to Wikipedia from the middle of the text. Each Wikibook should be standalone, independent of Wikipedia for the content. The reader should not need to go to Wikipedia to get a clarification. If a clarification is needed, the Wikibook should provide it directly. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree (apart from the consideration to write for "a reader" if you dont specify him/her for example by his knowledge, otherwise long arguments might occure). But did you consider the link not containing required information to understand the paragraph but containing a shourtcut for a source for the purpose of further reading, for whatever reasons the reader might have to acuire further knowledge? For me it's nice to have a direkt link to at least one other source, which you can access directly before searching the internet. If the text is understandable without the link, it does no harm, or dont you want delete it for another reason? If it's not understandeble, maybe it's better to take out that piece of information altogehter, move it to a different area in the book or into the discussion section etc. If you decide to leave it anyway, and I'm the reader I would appreciate a link with info that helps me to understand it. Anyway, just wanted to offer you a second perspective, if you want to consider one. --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS. currently I very busy, so if I dont answer write a note on my discussion page, then I'll get an email.

Note to myself and whoever cares to read: I have recreated Pidgin page with new content. The subject seems to fit Wikibooks well; other guides to using GUI software include GIMP, Inkscape, FreeMind, Using Firefox, OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice (a stub), and Microsoft Office. Undeveloped and almost content-free books include American Studies, Audacity, Gramma's Grammar, VBA For Business, OIB English, Breton, Communism, and others; see also Category:Stubs. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please explain what in particular you are not happy with. And actually I contributed to Programming Python all the way back in 2006. I suppose what makes me entitled is the same thing that makes you entitled. Programing Python in particular is actually a bit of mess. I am working on organising it basis of not knowing python, and building incrementally on previous topics. I do not think I have turned anything 'upside down' and if you would like to have a conversation about organisation, I would be more than happy to.

I also suggest you should use a more conciliatory tone. What makes you entitled to use such an abrasive tone? I'm on the IRC channel if you would care to discuss. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have responded at User_talk:Hackbinary#Python, which is the original location of this conversation. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your did you not respond entirely. Your attitude is shocking. Programming Python *IS* a mess. Decorators are talked about Classes. The navbars do not link between articles. The text page basically talks about strings. And my favourite, there is a section called 'Intro': Intro is not even a word. And I almost forgot about the Discussion pages: I archived what seemed me as no longer relevant. Capitalisation is inconsistent. The list goes on and on. What gives you right to revert improvements? I would be happy to discuss if you took a more cooperative tone. I do not contend that my view is gospel, but it is very peculiar why you are being so hostile. Please explain. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been bold and reverted your revert. Lets discuss what you are not happy about. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let's have the conversation on my discussion page? Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have started the conversation on your talk page, so this is where it belongs. How did I tell that you are a hasty newbie? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

'Hasty newbie' indeed. Please could you delete these three pages: Python_Programming/HTTP_Tools Python_Programming/Code_Reuse Python_Programming/Editing_and_Running_Python_Code, and talk pages if they have them. Thanks Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your edits today seem to be very disruptive. I understand that there are differences between editors of this book but that is not the way to sort out your differences (constantly reverting and undoing). I have reverted one of your edits while others I will leave for the other editors of the book to address and undo if they wish. I'd suggest you consult the other editors more.--ЗAНИA ^talk 12:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe my edits were "very disruptive". They were not disruptive at all, IMHO. I reverted changes made by user Hackbinary that are not based on consensus and are opposed by me. Your revert in diff in Template:Python Programming/TalkNav Start is hard to understand; the template is entirely pointless and should ideally be deleted. Since user Hackbinary has nothing of substance to contribute yet pushes his way in matters of taste, he should ideally be blocked from editing the pages under dispute. There is absolutely no reason why an editor with nothing of substance to contribute should be allowed to engage in an edit war with an editor with substantive contribution and get his way in matters of taste. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

What you say may be true. I really don't know much about the book's subject or the history of the problems but it seems courteous to at least leave a message on the user's talk page if you plan on reverting their edits. If you wish to get further opinions on this then you should post a notice in the Reading Room. --ЗAНИA ^talk 01:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do not think it good or productive to leave a message on the user's talk page when reverting the user's changes. Doing so is not a common practice on Wiktionary, my home wiki; is it a common practice on Wikibooks? When you are doing a revert, are you usually notifying the user? If so, can you post some diffs of such behavior of yours? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You will find that the majority of times I revert changes I leave a message on the talk page. Generally only IP edits are reverted and if I am reverting several hours later then I may not leave such a message. I don't usually revert logged-in users' edits instead editing them in some way. I think that I leave messages far more often that other active users and there is no policy on this but I would consider it to be polite to do so especially when reverting a regular user's edits.--ЗAНИA ^talk 18:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Xania that you should have put {{rfd}} before the third revert, but for the record I would have voted for the template deletion (not a redirection). JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 09:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that RFD process in Wikibooks does not work; there are not enough people to administer it and vote in it in a reasonably timely fashion. Redirect instead of deletion is a practical way of actually getting things done. Note that we are not talking a deletion a of a book but rather deletion of a subpage of a book. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Wikibooks name is misleading: Wikibooks is not for any and all books; it is especially not for fiction. Wikibooks is for non-fiction that does not fit other wiki projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, and therefore, it is for non-fiction that does not fit the encyclopedia project, the dictionary project or the source/library project, especially non-fiction that instructs or serves as a how-to.

Keywords: Wikibooks inclusion criteria, Wikibooks scope. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Relevant policy: Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks. This includes:

"Wikibooks is for textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals. These materials can be used in a traditional classroom, an accredited or respected institution, a home-school environment, as part of a Wikiversity course, or for self-learning. As a general rule, only instructional books are suitable for inclusion. Non-fictional books (as well as fictional ones) that aren't instructional aren't allowed on Wikibooks. Literary elements, such as allegory or fables, that are used as instructional tools can be permitted in some situations.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikibooks had some policy votes in the past. These are listed at Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote.

Specific votes (support:oppose:abstain):

• Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Naming policy, 2006, 14:2:?, Feb 12 - Mar 1
• Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Deletion Policy, 2006, 10:0:0, Mar 3 - Apr 15
• Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Be Bold, Mar 2007, 7:0:0, Mar 24 - Apr 20
• Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Blocking policy, Apr 2007, 5:5:0, Apr 20 - May 6 - "Vote ends one week after the last posting or consensus has clearly been reached"

Eligibility criteria:

• "Only registered users with at least 20 edits can vote." - used in all the four votes above.

Vote duration:

• See the list above. In the past, somewhat less than one month.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are atm several individual pages on Wikibooks about various UNIX utility programs; things like less, grep, hexdump. I see a way to satisfy both those who want those pages kept, and those who feel any one of them in itself does not constitute a book. We could create a book about UNIX utility programs, and make all these pages sections of that book. Would you be agreeable to that? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The book already exists: Guide to Unix/Commands. I have added an index (Guide to Unix/Index) and external links to have the book in a ready state for further expansion, and to make it much more useful as it is. However, I prefer to keep less, grep, hexdump, sed and Awk as separate pages.

Those who want to delete useful small pages should first make sure useless stale TOC-only pages such as Conphilosophy get deleted, which is not happening. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for constructive ways to improve things; I've no interest in the sort of needlessly-escalated confrontation that evidently happened recently between JackPotte and you.

Which said, I do have another question to try out on you. I feel I should explain where I'm coming from. I'm not concerned about the nature of the content on those pages (which is why I described that RFD nonsense as needless escalation); but just because the content is appropriate for Wikibooks doesn't mean that the quantum of content is appropriate to be treated as a standalone book. (I wouldn't put Awk in the same class, btw, fwiw.) You've mentioned a section of a book into which the material might fit. We do have more than one book on some topics, so I didn't think it unreasonable to suggest the option of a separate book, as an alternative to trying to graft those pages onto the existing structure of a book that might not really want them. As individual pages, though, they seem a bit like rogue planets, drifting about with no solar system to belong to.

I see no reason why, as long as those pages are the primary repository of info on their respective subjects, there mightn't be a redirect from the unadorned name to where they reside within some book (though eventually I hope we'll have some more effective means available for helping readers to find all information on Wikibooks related to less or grep or whatever). Would location within a book, with a redirect from the unadorned name of the utility, address your current concerns? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see no benefit for me and the readers in having extensive sed information in Guide to Unix/Commands/Sed (redlink) rather than in Sed. If I end up outvoted and Sed ends up at Guide to Unix/Commands/Sed, having a link from Sed to that location would certainly help.

I do not see it as essential that Wikibooks pages are organized into subpages. Some material benefits from that, some less so. I am happy with planets located outside of their solar system; they are easier to get started and maintain, and can still be useful and have the character of instruction. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The ones that concern me most are the narrowest; it's not at all clear to me whether Sed would want moving (I'd have to think carefully about that). I do see moving some of the narrowest ones into the structure of some larger book as beneficial to readers, both to readers of those particular resources and to readers of the project as a whole — but I admit I'd really like to wait a bit and revisit all this when there are no related open RFDs, as I find it unpleasant to try to operate in an environment of threat regardless of whether I myself feel targeted. (Come to think of it, Wikipedia has a real problem with this, widespread threat of RFD adding to the mix of toxins in the social atmosphere.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just a heads-up, that I moved some things around to untangle an administrative snarl. You'd renamed this book in August 2012, but the book category didn't move with it, and neither did about half a dozen subpages that (just to further complicate things) you had, at the time, just recently unlinked from the book. I had come along the next year and, noticing the book main page without a book category, I created a book category for it. This meant there were two separate book categories, one of them containing the book main page under its new name, and the other with no main page in it but the half-dozen abandoned stub subpages. To tidy things up, I've moved the stubs so they are once again unlinked subpages of the book main page, and there's once again only one book category (the old one, renamed to the new book title and new naming scheme; I just deleted the one I created in 2013). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have started to remove uses of {{Talk header}} (or {{Talkheader}}) added by PokestarFanBot or PokestarFan without discussion. There is a lot to do and I need to figure out how to do it in volume.

Wikbooks did well without the template so far. The template clutters display while adding close to nothing of value. The overwhelming majority of editors have managed to properly use talk pages without being given an instruction along the lines of "post only true sentences"; Wikibooks is not a kindergarten.

If such a box should be on every talk page (which I oppose), this could be done centrally by customizing this installation on MediaWiki or the like.

For my reference, a Wiktionary deletion discussion is at wikt:Template talk:talk header; a discussion on my talk page is at wikt:User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey I would like to help. Is there a way to call up all the pages that had it? Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Talk_header yields a list of transclusions, but I intend to go by a list of PokestarFanBot contributions. If we had consensus to delete the template altogether, it would be easier; I posted to Template_talk:Talk_header#Delete. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I used AWB and User:DPMaid to remove about 700 transclusions. We would ideally find consensus to delete or deprecate Template:Talk header, and then it would be easy to remove all instances. If we do not deprecate or delete the template, the template will keep being added by various people. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

AWK corrected to AWB. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs)

The admin policy draft, marked as policy, is at WB:ADMIN.

Inactivity-based desysopping is governed by the following from WB:ADMIN: "Sysops who are especially inactive, specifically for at least one year or longer, can be removed without a consensus discussion." En wikt policy is 5 years of no use of admin tools, per vote, whose talk page contains some interesting statistics in "Some statistics" section. The period of 2 years is used in meta:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders, which to my taste uses fairly complex language. Also of interest is meta:Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies, which lists inactivity policies of various Wikimedia projects.

Desysopping takes place in Wikibooks:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions.

I registered my opposition to the 1-year period in Wikibooks:Requests for permissions for Recent Runes, July 2018 (rev), and earlier in the same page for Darklama, March 2016 (rev).

A 2005 discussion is at Wikibooks talk:Administrators/Archive 1#Time limits for Admins.

A 2006 discussion is at Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2006/February#Removing Sysop Status

There is now Category:Requests for desysop, just created by me. It may be incomplete.

Keywords: removal of admin rights.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Opposition to inactivity desysopping includes that by Xania: "Oppose As usual I am registering my opposition to these deadminship requests. I disagree with the policy of removing admin rights for inactivity. Xania" ([1]). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Another: "Be that as it may, the decision to desysop due to age... something I've also been against for some time... is something that is up to the community at large. --Rob Horning", where "due to age" is probably to be understood as "due to time of inactivity". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I distantly recall coming across, years ago, an archived remark by somebody being desysopped for inactivity that they were in favor of the practice; I think they said they'd been a primary architect of the policy, though that could be my memory embellishing. Since afaict we haven't turned that one up yet, I figure there's more on the subject somewhere. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

A guiding page is here: Wikibooks:Original research.

The status of the page:

• "draft proposal for a Wikibooks policy or guideline". Therefore:
• 1) it is a mere draft proposal
• 2) it does not say whether the page, if approved, would be a policy (a set of rigid rules) or a guideline (a set of overridable/flexible rules)

Key statements from the page:

• S1: In principle, Wikibooks discourages original research.
• S2: In practice, however, Wikibooks allows material based on repeatable information from personal experiences or from common knowledge when published literature might reasonably support it, or consensus might reasonably agree with its inclusion.
• S3: If questions do arise, questionable material must cite a reliable publication to be kept.

The conjunction of these statements is rather low-quality or subpar. Since, in case of doubt about material one has spent one's resources to produce, S3 applies, and then, requirement to cite "reliable publication" applies. What S1-S3 state in rather confusing language is that "Wikibooks forbids original research and all statements must be able to trace to reliable sources". The phrase "must be able to trace" was intentionally chosen in contrast to "must trace" since even Wikipedia does not require "must trace", merely "must be able to trace".

When working on books like Windows Batch Scripting, I am in part relying on the experimental method. I formulate a hypothesis, and testing on my Windows machine, where cmd.exe is naturally present. There is a risk that I make an error during the hypothesis testing; after all, I am not engaging in professional, well-funded reverse-engineering. I am not producing a published test suite to verify each statement. In general, I am unable to trace observations I make to authoritative sources, in part since there is scarcity of authoritative sources. In particular, Microsoft official documentation is rather incomplete.

Possible solutions:

• Greatly reduce the content of "Windows Batch Scripting" to match stringent sourcing principles. However, since the official Microsoft documentation is in fact not 100% reliable (this can be empirically demonstrated), it is unclear whether it qualifies as "reliable source"; and if it does not, one would need to find an alternative for sourcing, and then the question is whether one would be able to empirically refute/falsifiy the other sources as well to some extent, proving them to be not 100% reliable.
• Declare the guiding page to be non-binding, which it officially is, and apply one's common sense, which is not necessarily common. Point out that even if it were a formally approved "policy or guideline" and not merely a proposal, it would still be "or guideline", and thereby overridable, not strictly binding. Do one's best to provide accurate information, while accepting the risk of putting inaccurate information in Wikibooks. This is the solution I chose years ago.
  • Rationale: There is genuine value in providing readers with this form of original research. It is not original making things up, which is what Wikiversity is for (Wikiversity expressly allows original research). It is original experiment-verified statement production. Merely repeating in different words what is already in Microsoft pages adds very little value. A similar reasoning applies to other computing Wikibooks.

An alternative is to use Wikiversity for creating materials that would otherwise be in Wikibooks. Since, thanks to the original research policy of Wikiversity, there would be no policy dispute concerning possible accusation of original research. A whole book like "Windows Batch Scripting" could be transferred to Wikiversity. However, until an actual dispute arises, this seems unnecessary.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply