> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For comparison, I understand that Wikibooks are considered somewhat > > "owned" by the person starting the book. >
As an admin on Wikibooks I'd beg to differ. I'll point out this page which sums up the project's opinion: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Ownership (Ignore the fact that it's proposed; the majority of the de facto policies/guidelines are proposals and I've not seen one ratified in the past two years. Additionally, that page has been present since 2006.) The talk page brought forth some interesting points, namely the section on authorship which led to another draft: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Authorship Those outside the project may conflate Wikibooks' idea of authorship with that of ownership. Still, this is a significant departure from Wikipedia's culture. While both of course have page histories, Wikibooks promotes the use of a contributors/editors/authors page for books for providing credit to those that helped write the book. Now, the reality is that despite our decision that one person shouldn't have supreme control over a book, at any one time you are likely to only have a single person working on a book and determining the entirety of its structure and content. Should that person abandon the effort, the book can go years before another person takes up the reins or, more often, never be worked on again. There's a distinct desire to control the content and not have to deal with a previous editor's decisions. So people will start a new book. This is seen in the effort I went through to indicate approximate completion status for all the books present at Wikibooks. Just under 80% of the books are not even half done. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_completion_status -- Adrignola _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l