From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


I think you need to clarify the scope of this proposal. Should it also include electrical engineering or starting your own business and other howto's for life? If that is the case, I would be very willing to contribute (not that I know that much about those). -- Kernel Dan

Yeap, absolutely everything. I added, From building Skyscrapers to Japenese cabinet making to electrical engineering to running your own cooperative. It would cover absolutely everything to do with the built environment.Christiaan - 08:05, 18 Jan 2005

Some proposals[edit]

It will be convenient if this will take form of tutorials with ability to publish document revisions alike "Linux Networking How-To rev1.0". Every major revision number could be expressed on separate layer (for example, when new linux networking scheme will pop up, older tutorial still will be here for those, who uses older scheme). Many environment setup instructions could include sample scripts or other files like skeletons or blank documents. It must be possible to attach and check these files, track their revisions. This comes to something like web-CVS client/editor. I planned to make some knowledge management system one day based on wiki, but due to a lack of resources I leave my ideas to you. =) --Techtonik 23:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Same aim as Wikibooks[edit]

This could be very capabily be handled by Wikibooks. Tutorials, how-tos, that's what it's for. Suggest you start the work there, and if it begins to outgrow Wikibooks then consider creating a new top-level project. GeorgeStepanek 02:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this view but the corollary is that a special Wikimedia project (i.e. not buried in Wikibooks) would encourage interest in an area where, comparatively speaking, you don't have a natural base of editors. Compare say the amount of builders, architects and musicians to the number of mathematicians and programmers. It's a systemic bias issue.
It's worth noting that all Wikimedia projects could simply be Wikibooks. I would rather see such new projects that have recognised potential and a good plan given a prominent domain space such or and advertised along side Wikisource, Wikispecies and other Wikimedia projects under a Wikilabs heading.
I think this is especially pertinent to projects that may need special code to reach their true potential, such as presenting music notation in Wikiscores or previews of 2D and 3D CAD files in Wikibuilder. —Christiaan - 09:28, 20 Jan 2005
all Wikimedia projects could simply be Wikibooks.
No. All could (and are) wikis. And wikibook is just the easiest way to start your wiki about anything. I agree that this project have no need for special policies or new how-to as wikinews has. It is a project for a repository of knowledge in a wiki way. And as this, should be started in wikibooks to see if it can gather enough contributors.
buried in Wikibooks
So you want a wiki or a front page advertisement? Many projects are anounced in the frontpage and that does nt means they have plenty of contributors. Start small, begin humble. Write a wikibook.--Avsa 21:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My statement that "all WIkimedia projects could simply be Wikibooks" was meant to illustrate that just because Wikibuilder could be a Wikibook doesn't mean it should be.
There's no agreement that Wikibuilder wouldn't need special policies. Indeed if you read the proposal special policies and special Mediawiki code are integral.
Yes a front page ad, but much more than that. I proposed Wikibuilder because it clearly fits the criteria for a Wikimedia Foundation project and I think it would be viable if done under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not so sure of it's viability otherwise. I think Wikilabs (another proposal) would be the perfect place for approved project proposals (in accordance with the New project policy).
Christiaan - 15:52, 22 Jan 2005
While you're spending time talking about a new project to promote teaching about the built environment, contributors at wikibooks are working on textbooks and guides covering b:Engineering Thermodynamics, b:Solid Mechanics, b:Electronics, b:Robotics, b:Making Basic Armor, and b:How To Build A Computer, just to name a few. With more energy spent promoting and working on the existing Wikibooks project (which is basicly tied with Wiktionary and Wikiquote as the 2-4 most visited Wikimedia projects), you might find that working in the existing project will allow your goals to be reached earlier than would be possible by starting a new project.
Regarding Wikibooks being a possible location for any wiki project, I disagree. Wikibooks is, and always has been, for hosting instructional material. There are many things that Wikibooks is not. Wikibooks is not a source text repository. Wikibooks is not a dictionary. Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia. Wikibooks is not a fiction repository. Wikibooks is a resource for textbooks, teaching aids, lesson plans, how-to guides, and other instructional material, and I think Wikibuilder would make a very nice addition to the project (especially as we're already working on parts of it ;)). Gentgeen 04:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's great and I'll be sure to contribute, however the intention of this proposal is not restricted to instructional guides; as stated on the article page it is a proposal for a knowledge base (and includes the need for a new strategy to deal with pictorial information in a wikified way). There's no rush either, this is a long term proposal. Christiaan 10:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redefining aims of Wikibooks[edit]

There has been some recent (July 2005) discussion of more clearly defining what exactly Wikibooks should and should not be about among Wikibookians. The original goal was to have it be a repository of actual textbooks that could then be used for Wikiversity classes (a virtual university done through a Wikimedia project in some manner). In addition, it was to support the creation of textbooks for educational purposes, or in other words, for educational institutions like high schools, universities, and even grade schools (Wikijunior like that, but drifting more toward pure non-fiction content).

One nice thing about this proposal is that it more clearly defines a place for "How to" manuals, including the infamous How To Build A Pykrete Bong. "How to" books have now been put into their own bookshelf on Wikibooks, but it really is out of place compared to many of the more textbook type books that are on Wikibooks.

Regardless, Wikibooks should not be a dumping ground for any project that the rest of Wikimedia doesn't want to deal with. That seems to be a recurring theme with the Proposals for New Projects page. In addition, the scope of this project could expand considerably beyond simple "How to" books into other areas of construction and manufacturing. My main concern is that there has been little toward trying to refine the concept by the original proposer. --Roberth 06:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


I really like this idea. One key selling point you might work into the presentation: this project could provide really important free information for do-it-yourselfers in developing nations. Everything from basic construction of outhouses, chicken coops, and schoolhouses to how to set up a computer network. The project could get a lot of support (even grants) if it's willing to find out what information people in these nations really need, and work collaboratively to provide it for free. (Jimbo's mentioned things along this line as one of his dreams for Wikimedia....) Catherine 04:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's definitely part of the idea. Feel free to help edit the article page. —Christiaan - 22:28, 18 Jan 2005
I really like this proposal, it also relates to my proposal[1] to have a spoil-proof archive used for rebuilding the built environment in case it breaks down. I'd like to contribute, and I'm looking for others to help suggest ways to store the results in lasting ways. User:Steverapaport

I'd like to reiterate that all this is a noble cause, but can be done in Wikibooks. There's no need to have overlapping projects, it just wastes time and effort. -- user:zanimum

Thanks for this suggestion. I was going to suggest something like it myself. I have been taking notes for several years from numerous books on energy use and resource production, but without an environment to foster learning, my knowledge hasn't really progressed much. I just have a huge bundle of notes that I'm looking to transfer to a more usable form. My own interest is that, whilst there are books around on energy use, there is little on, say, the total labour, energy and resource requirements for anything like building a skyscraper. Still, the notes I have would help get the ball rolling, and I would be keen to help out. Let me know if you are interested in this sort of thing. I am reasonably new to Wiki, and I haven't created an account yet, but I'm working on it. Note: on the issue of making this a Wikibook project, there is no way I would have ever found this if it wasn't in the separate projects section. It seems like a different idea, and one of major interest and importance. Bring it on :-) 06:28, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this is a very interesting subject, I am currently trying to start a building technolpgy wiki for in-house use in my architecture company.

however there woudl be some extreme problems involved in noting different practices in different countries, in nailing down the every changing regulations and agreed best proctice.

there is a great deal to commend the attempt though. basically you would want the biggest fullest and most indepth DIY manual ever made that encompassed historic buildings, all new building systems methods and materials and every home-owners bodging Alistairtwiname


First and foremost we need to agree on terminology. Wikipedia article terms seem rather contradictory and diffuse. My proposals are:

ARCHITECTURE (n): The art of projecting and making constructions.

CONSTRUCTION (n): An orderly assembly of material pieces arranged by living beings for their use. Human constructions are named BUILDINGS when they cover the space with a ROOF, providing shelter to their activities.

BUILD (v): The works involved in making a construction.

SYSTEM (n): An coherent ensemble of pieces with a specific function in the construction. The main architectural systems are SPACES, FABRICS and INSTALLATIONS.

STRUCTURE (n): The pattern that relates each piece to the whole system.

FABRIC (n): The system that carries to the ground the loads imposed on the construction.

INSTALLATIONS (n): The systems that supplies water, energy, transportation and artificial climate into the building, conveying out its wastes.

As a comment, I dislike very much the misuse of the term ARCHITECTURE by computer professionals. They should use instead, unless invent their own, the more general term STRUCTURE. July 2007.