Google Analytics

The issue of page counting is one that is raised regularly, not just on Wikibooks but on many other WMF projects as well. There are plenty of good reasons why the software doesnt do this automatically, not the least of which is the caching mechanism. However, in a recent wikibooks discussion, the possibility of using the free Google Analytics service has been raised. Some users, myself included, have installed the google analytics script into their own personal javascript files.

I personally access Wikibooks through multiple browsers (IE6 and IE7, Firefox, Safari), so i'll be able to test the script in a variety of ways. I'll be looking at the accuracy and relevancy of the results, as well as the performance of using this tool. If everything is on the up and up, we may start seeing a few recommendations that this script be loaded into the common.js file, at which point we will get the site-wide statistics that we've always wanted. Of course if this doesnt work out, we will go back to counting page hits the old-fashioned way: on our fingers.

Updated Templates

Stolen? Yes, we ripped wikipedia's new {{Ambox}} template off cold. Let's face it: it was a great idea. A complete aesthetic overhaul, and a standardization of all the various messages that we put onto a page. Plus, the nice color-coded scheme is very logical and easily usable. Red means bad, blue or green mean good. It's a system that anybody can get behind. Of course, we had to fiddle with the icons, the colors, and the CSS, but we Wikibookians can never just leave well-enough alone.

Wikibook's old template messages were ugly and archaic. When the idea was brought up to replace them en masse with a newer, sleeker, prettier and more standardized series of templates, the decision was unanimous: "yes, do it now". And so it is done. Wikibooks now has a whole set of fancy new templates, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Wikiquality

I got a message from Erik Moeller in my inbox today, and so should everybody else (if not you need to sign up for one of the various mailing lists). It was all about the new "Wikiquality" initiativew, involving the ne http://quality.wikimedia.org website, a new Wikiquality-l mailinglist, and the FlaggedRevs extension. It's all exciting stuff, and I think that Anthere was a genius for making reliability one of her focus points.

However, the concern that comes to my mind (as is usual) is that the whole thing seems very wikipedia-centric. Even on the quality.wikimedia.org website, it's all about wikipedia: not a single mention of any of the other sister projects. I can understand it, the whole issue was started because of reliability concerns over Wikipedia, and the negative press that it has received because of it's spam and vandalism and biased editing. I do understand that this is a good solution to a problem that Wikipedia has faced more then any other sister project.

However in this movement to improve Wikipedia I can see the catalyst for the explosive growth of other projects, specifically Wikibooks. One of the primary reasons why Wikibooks textbooks are not currently used in school class rooms, is precisely because of the non-static nature of those books. Teachers need a stable and reliable textbook to base a class around, and things would go to hell if the book changed mid-semester. Imagine if a classroom of young children reading a Wikijunior book woke up one morning to find pornographic image vandalism in their textbook? Stable versions would help to prevent that, and therefore make the whole experience more reliable and more safe.

Instead of hunting down the specific revision IDs of the pages in a book, a teacher could simply ask that the "current version" of the book be stabilized for the duration of the school period. Work could still continue in the background, and after the classes are over the new version could go live. Up till now, most classes have used Wikibooks as a collaborative writing medium, and we would really like to expand that to become a reading medium as well. I think this new quality assurance initiative is the last piece to the puzzle for Wikibooks to finally become a world-class source for reliable, high-quality textbooks.

Simple/English Wikibooks Merger

SB Johnny and myself have left a message on the [[Wikibooks:Simple Talk]] page of the simple.wikibooks project (the equivalent of the "staff lounge" or "village pump" that readers might be familiar with). The gist of the message is that we move to merge the simple.wikibooks project into the en.wikibooks project. Earlier this week, import was enabled between the two projects, which would make the transition easier then it would have been otherwise.

Initial reaction seems positive. We've tried to structure the suggestion in a way that is non-hostile. We want to accentuate the positives of a merger, without throwing around words like "failed project". Some of the positive reasons for a merger are:

1. More administrators. En.wikibooks has more administrators, along with bcrats and CU's necessary to really keep cleanup tasks under control, and to effectively combat vandals. Simple.wikibooks currently only has two admins, one appears to be relatively inactive, and they require regular help from stewards to fight vandalism. If there is a merger, it's likely that the administrators from simple.wb could be made into admins on en.wb immediately, or through an expedited process.
   
2. En.wikibooks is no longer "grumpy" (not my term for it). Our project used to copy many of the policies from wikipedia, such as the "one subject, one article" policy. We've expanded to allow multiple books on a single subject, especially if those books have different scopes, or different target audiences. This means it's perfectly acceptable to have an "X" book, along with an "X in simplified english" book. In fact, we already have a number of books written in simplified english variants, so the addition of the books from simple.wikibooks would not be any kind of problem or exception.
   
3. En.wikibooks has really been expanding it's organizational structures recently. We have an entire namespace dedicated to organizing, and we've developed a number of category/DPL techniques for keeping books organized. We also have a very successful "Featured Books" program that helps to promote our best books.
4. En.Wikibooks is very stable, with a solid group of contributors, large numbers of new accounts created regularly, new content being created regularly, etc. We are no longer suffering from the cyclic periods of ups and downs that smaller projects experience. Work is able to progress at a more even and consistent rate. This stability attracts new contributors who in turn bring more content and more visibility for our project.
   

There are still a few more active users on that project that we want to hear from, but overall i think it's a good idea that will bring benefit to all users. If they don't like the idea, that's fine too. I dont want to force anybody to do anything that they dont want to do, but I hope that other people can see the same kinds of benefits that I see from it.

Adopt a Book

Books, especially younger books, need a strong driving force to keep them growing and to keep them on track. So often, the author of a new book abandons it before the book has reached a stable and mature status. Without a certain amount of stability, new editors don't contribute to the book, and it languishes over time. Wikibooks has many books that really just need to be adopted by new authors, authors who have the necessary vision and energy to turn a forgotten book-stub into a great educational resource.

[[Human Anatomy]]: Most of the links in the TOC are red, and the few blue links point to mish-mashed pages with all sorts of random content. This book has also been nominated for a merger with [[Anatomy]], which is in a similar condition. Compare this book with the fantastic [[Human Physiology]] book, which has tons of content and images.

[[Semiconductors]]: I started this book as a way to combine several stub-books and pages on this topic. Unfortunately, it isnt an area of expertise and I haven't been able to add to it much. Proof that even an experienced author can get in over his head. Since many of the pages were merged in from other books, there is very little continuity of discussion, nor commonality of formatting.

[[Geometry]]: There are many links in the TOC of this book, but most of them point to stub pages. Also, all the pages are named in a very non-descript fashion, such as "Geometry/Chapter 1". Comparse this to an excellent geometry book for younger readers at [[Geometry for Elementary School]].

[[Psychology]]: A subject that so many students study, but for which we don't have a good book. This book has only a few pages out of a relatively large outline. The few sub pages are either stubs or outlines themselves.

This is just a very small listing of books that need some help. Hopefully, i'll be able to list a few other good ones here eventually.

Dewey Decimal System

So we go through all this effort to implement the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, and now it seems the effort may have been wasted. We've created categories and templates, and all sorts of other pretty things to manage this new system, taking extra precautions to ensure that the system was both usable and expandable. Using categories and DynamicPageLists we were able to create a whole swarm of dynamically-updated lists of books by subject.

Recently en.wikibooks got a whole new namespace to use for organization, and we've been putting it to good use. For a look at the initial work (most of it bot-created) in organizing, you can travel to [[Subject:All Subjects]].

What we have now is (at least the beginnings of) a powerful new system for organizing books: logically arranged, automatically updated, completely uniform. In short, we just don't need DDC anymore, especially not with it's obvious deficiencies in the areas where Wikibooks needs the most precision (computer books).

Beyond that, some questions have come to light about the legality of using the DDC. It is under copyright, although the extent to which it is copyrighted is a matter of some ambiguity. The OCLC website has the following to offer in it's FAQ:

"The DDC is owned by OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Incorporated ("OCLC"). We do consider licensing arrangements for the DDC database. To request a licensing proposal, please send an e-mail message to DeweyLicensing@oclc.org, describing in detail your proposed use of the DDC."

Do we need a license even if we aren't using the database? Do we need a license to apply numbers to books, or do we only need a license to use the categories that OCLC has already created? If the system is a copyvio, we might have to delete it whether we want to keep it or not.

More organization, a whole namespace

Over the weekend, en.Wikibooks got a new namespace, the "Subject:" namespace. it's goal is to be an organizational namespace, where we can list and cross-list books based on a variety of metrics. By using a comprehensive set of categories, templates, along with clever use of special pages and DPL, we can automatically generate a large number of helpful book lists. The only problem so far is that there are so many possibilities, that nobody quite knows where to start.

Also, it will take much more effort to create templates and categories, and then properly tag all the books, to help maintain all the millions of lists that we are likely to develop.